MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22070, 2 July 1935, Page 12

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TUESDAY, JULY 3. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES, Judgment by default, with costs, was given for the plaintiffs in the following cases William John M'Rao v. Alexander Marshall Paterson, £3 10s, goods supplied; Moore, Dawson, and Aitken v. Cody Brothers (Gore). £6 7s services rendered; T. Griffiths v. Walter Mayne Perry, £1 7s 6d, money duo; Neill and Co, Ltd. v. M. Allison, £l3 2s 6d, goods supplied. ORDER FOR POSSESSION. J. E. Brunton proceeded against W. C. Arthur claiming to recover possession of a house, with appurtenances and laud, an order for possession on or before July 16 being made, together with rent due (£6 17s 6d), costs (£1), and solicitor’s fee (15s 6d). JUDGMENT SUMMONS, Wairarapa Farmers’ Co-op, Ltd. (Masterton) proceeded against W. J. Bowker claiming £5 4s 5d on a judgment summons, an order being made for the payment of the full amount, with costs (13s), in default six days’ imprisonment. ALLEGED ATTACK BY DOG. Claiming £49 15s as damages as a result of injuries received when she fell on the pavement when a dog rushed at her, Maud Boardman proceeded against Edward Mackenzie. Mr B. P. Wilson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr W. Ward for the defendant. The statement of claim set out that on February 11, 1935, she was walking north along the pavement on the righthand side of King street, between Howe and Duke streets, when she was attacked by a dog. She jumped back in an endeavour to avoid the dog and in doing so fell heavily, sustaining a broken right arm, and had to attend the Dunedin Public Hospital as a result of the injury. She was deprived of the total use of the right arm for 11 weeks, in consequence of which she lost her employment and was unable to do certain retouching work which she was accustomed to do for various photographers. It was alleged that the defendant was the owner of the dog. Mr Wilson said that the facts were of a simple nature. As the plaintiff was walking along the footpath a large dog sprang at her, and as she dodged back to the wall she fell and received the injury. She had paid 38 to the hospital, apart from receiving medical attention. The dog did not actually bite her, but Tushed at her, forcing her against the wall and causing her to fall.. , Evidence was given by Dr J) niton, who stated the nature of the injury, and the plaintiff. Mrs Jean Patterson, who was on the pavement at the time of the accident, said that the plaintiff told her she put her band on the dog as she passed, but the latter did not know why she did so. Witness did not see the dog jump at the plaintiff, and she did not hear the animal bark or growl. She saw the plaintiff coming along the footpath, but did not notice her again until the accident. Bessie Frances Dixon also gave evldcnc6« Mr Ward said ho proposed to call evidence to show that the dog did not attack the plaintiff. Presumably she touched it, as the last witness had said. He had proposed to apply for a nonsuit. but thought it would bo better if the case were heard right through. The defendant in evidence said that he had never known the dog to attack anyone. He had had it since it was a pup, and it was now about six or seven years’ old. Children in tbe neighbourhood often put their arms round the dog’s neck. To Mr Wilson, he said the only complaint he had had was from the police that the dog barked from the yard at passers-by. He denied telling the plaintiff that the dog had attacked another person,. Gordon Alfred Fox and, Violet May Fox also gave evidence. (Proceeding.)