RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 6031, 11 July 1882, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, July 10. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases :—A. B. Mercer v. John Kelly, claim L 6 14s 4d, for goods supplied ; Samuel Lister v. W. C. Rose, L2 12s 6d, balance of account due ; Kempthorne, Prosser, and Co. v. Otto Haase, Lls 17s. Ebenezer Brown v. John M'Auley.— Claim, LlO, value of a collie do'g, the property of plaintiff, and destroyed by defendant. Mr Denniston appeared for plaintiff; Mr Stout for defendant.—Plaintiff stated that he lived at Broad Bay on property adjoining defendant's. The latter's sheep used to trespass every day on witness's land, and he used to drive them off with his dog. Defendant had a down on the dog, used to complain about its worrying the sheep, and at last shot at it twice in witness's presence. The dog used not to bite defendant's sheep, but always kept its mouth shut. Crossexamined : The dog did not die when it was shot; it did not seem to bo hurt at the time, but next day its head swelled up. Then it got better, until nine days afterwards, when it got bad figain and seemed to go mad. Witness then called in a neighbor, and on his advice killed the dog. Witness used to set tho dog on the sheep, oven if they were not on his land but only near the fence. —Two witnesses gave evidence that the dog was not in a fit state to live.— Mr Stout submitted that plaintiff must bo nonsuited, inasmuch as there was no proof that the dog had to be killed on account of defendant's shooting at it. No expert evidence to that effect had been adduced.—His Worship suggested that the plaint should be amended so that defendant should be sued for "shooting at and injuring the dog."—This was done, and evidence was given for the defence.—John M'Auley stated that plaintiff was in the habit of setting his dog on to witness's sheep. Witness repeatedly complained to plaintiff about it, but the latter only replied that he would set the dog on every morning. Witness then told him that he would shoot the dog if lie saw it hunting the sheep again. Next morning he saw it chasing the sheep under plaintiff's directions, and witness accordingly shot at it twice. Cross-examined: The land on which the sheep were was part of the township, not witness's property.' One of witness's sheep had been killed by the dog.—Caleb Mooro stated that at the time in question he lived at Broad Bay. He had repeatedly seen plaintiffs dog chasing the defendant's sheep; which was calculated

to injure them. Sometimes plaintiff was with the dog, but very often the dog was by itself. —Another witness gave corroborative evidence, and His Worship reserved judgment.

G. Smart v. David Hood.—Claim, LG lis 3d, for work done. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff ; Mr Stout for defendant. —Judgment was given for defendant.

Otago University v. William Barnes.— Claim, L 7, damages for trespass on plaintiff's property and for the throwing of rubbish thereon, Mr I<\ R. Chapman, appeared for the plaintiffs, and stated that the action was brought with a view of putting a stop to a very annoying practice adopted by defendant and other persons.— Donald M. Stuart, solicitor, stated that ho was a tenant in occupation of premises situated at the corner of Albany and Castio streets, and belonging to the plaintiffs. For several months past he had seen defendant's carts emptying dust and all sorts of rubbish on the University reserve close by, causing an intolerable nuisance to all residents in the neighborhood. Witness had seen defendant standing by while this work was going on. Witness considered that it would coat about L2O to cover over the offensive portion of the stuff that had been deposited.— Defendant affirmed that ho know nothing of the matter. His carters had acted without his knowledge or Banction. He was willing to cover orer the stuff with earth.—Mr Chapman said the plaintiffs did not wißh to be hard on defendant, and they would agree to an adjournment for a fortnight to enable him to remedy what he had done, in which case they would be satisfied with the nominal damages of Is and costs.—The case was adjourned accordingly. Anne Alexander v. John Salmon.—Claim, L 7, money lent. Mr E. Cook appeared for plaintiff; Mr D. M. Stuart for defendant, who pleaded infancy and not indebted. — Plaintiff stated that he was a bootmaker. He was born on November 16, but he could not exactly Bay of what year.—Mr Stuart: When will you be twenty - one ? Mr Cook objected to the question ; the defence was so shabby an one that he would haye the case conducted with the utmost strictness.—Mr Stuart: I have here a certificate of successful vaccination.—His Worship: What do you purpose showing from that ?Mr Stewart: The age of defendant. It purports to set forth that the defendant was successfully vaccinated on a certain day in September, 1863, on which day he was ten months old.—Mr Cook: A very mature age indeed! What did he know of his age at that time. He Was present when he was born, I suppose, but how can he say of his own knowledge when it waa ?—-Hia Worship decided that the vaccination paper could not be put in as evidence of defendant's age.—Mr Stewart then asked for an adjournment, in order that defendant's mother might be called to give evidence.— Adjournment granted on payment of costs.