CAN A DOG SWIM?

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 3946, 31 May 1913, Page 5

CAN A DOG SWIM?

' CAUSE OF AN ARGUMENT. DAMAGES ALLOWED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. The case was continued before Mr R. S. Florence, S.M., yesterday, in which Gordon Byrne (Mr Burnard) v. James McArthur (Mr A. T. Coleman), claimed £26 12s damages in respect of an alleged assault. In giving evidence defendant, said he had been working at the waterworks at Waingake for some weeks on the same job as plaintiff. They had been on friendly terms up to the day of the quarrel. They had had tiffs, but witness would give way to plaintiff. On the day in question four of i them were going for the mail. When ( crossing some pipes witness said he ] would not like to fall in there. Plaintiff said it would not matter if a man fell in, as he could get out, providing it was not too deep. The argument continued between Thomson and plaintiff. Thomson or plaintiff remarked that a dog could swim across the creek. Witness, said if a man i could not get out a dog could not. One word Ted to another, and plaintiff said: “It is a wonder to me, ‘Scotty,’ why you always contradict everything I say.” Witness replied that he did not always contradict, and he suggested lettiim the argument drop. Plaintiff said: “Don’t you think you are the only man in camp who can talk sense?” Witness said. “I’m prettv sensible sometimes, you know, Gordon.” They walked along for about another chain, and then plaintiff said lie was a cleverer man than witness. Witness said he might be. Plaintiff said he had more brains than witness had got, and he invited witness to come up to a clear patch. Witness asked him if he really meant it, but there was no reply. When going along for about another chain plaintiff kept nagging at witness. They were sober., Plantiff provoked -witness that much, calling him insulting names, that he hit him on the jaw. John Parsons, engine-driver, said arguments were daily occurrences between plaintiff and defendant at the meal table. Dr Collins, called by Mr Burnard, said he attended to plaintiff between midnight and 1 a.m. on April 2S. The man had a fractured jaw, and was suffering a considerable amount of pain. Plaintiff was .in the private hospital for over a week. The lower jaw had become undershot. •His Worship said both parties were silly individuals to come to blows over such trivial matters. Plaintiff’s claim for general damages must be reduced. It was agreed that the special damages were £6 12s. a,nd the loss of wages amounted to £7 10s, making £l4 2s, and his Worship said if he gave judgment tor £l-3 it was all he could allow under the circumstances. Plaintiff was also allowed £7 4s costs.