Thursday, October 21.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume I, Issue 56, 23 October 1880, Page 2

Thursday, October 21.

(Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M., Captain Wilson, and F. McGuire, Esq., J.P.'s.)

NEGLECTING CHILDREN.

Henry Barton was charged with neglecting to support his children in the Industrial School, Auckland. The case was adjourned for one month, defendant, in the meantime, to pay 10s. a week into court.

DRUNK AttD DISORDERLY*

Charles Mills was charged with having been drunk and disorderly on the 16th instant, and also with assaulting Constable Crozier. Defendant was let off with a caution on the first charge, but a fine of 20s. and costs, or 48 hours' imprisonment, was inflicted for the second offence.

CIVIL CASES.

Louisa Smith v. L. D'Alton. — Claim 18s* 6d., goods supplied. Judgment for the amount claimed, and 9s. costs.

Mary Claridge v. Louisa Smith. — Claim for 14s. 6d., damage alleged to have been done by defendant's cows to plain tiff's garden. The bench did not consider there was sufficient evidence to show that there had been any damage done, and gave judgment for the defendant.

F. Riddiford v. Ngahuinga. — Claim for £2 10s., money lent. Mr. D' Alton acted as interpreter. Defendant admitted owing the money, but could not say when he would be able to pay it. Judgment for the amount, and costs.

E. Doharty v. W. L. England.— Claim for .£1 17s. lid., balance of accounts. Judgment for defendant, with costs.

RECOVERY OF A HORSE.

W. Collins v. F. Bailey.— Claim for i?SO. Mr. Parrington for plaintiff ; , Mr. Hamerton for defendant. The action was brought to recover possession of a chesnut mare, which was sold by the bailiff of the court, under a warrant obtained in the case of Sherrath v. Brightwell. The horse had been in Brightwell'a possession at the time of the seizure, but plaintiff claimed it as his property.

W. Guerin, bailiff of the court, stated that, under a distress warrant, issued on the 28th June, in the case of Sherrath v. Brightwell, he had seized two horses, which were afterwards sold by the auctioneer, under witness's instructions, the defendant being the purchaser oft one of them. Witness admitted receiving a notice, before the sale took place, from D. Matthews, as agent for Wm. Collins, claiming the mare as the property of the latter.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hamerton — The morning that the sale took place, Matthews, as agent for Collins, came and tendered a claim to witness, but the latter took Matthews before a Justice of the Peace, who held that the. claim was not a valid one. Mr. Parrington came to witness several times, and threatened proceedings, if he sold the horse. The morning of the sale Mr. Parrington told witness that, as Matthews had not come to him, he (witness) could sell the horse. Witness did not notify defendant as to any objection to the sale. Defendant paid the money, and witness handed it into the clerk of the court.

He-exaznrneil — You (Mr. P&rringfcon) £iiarantee<^ to pay for the stabling 1 o£ the horse, if the sale was postponed ; but you gave no security — nothing more than a verbal one. You did not ofier me any money in your office. Witness postponed the sale, because he expected the owner would have proved his claim, and laid down the necessary security.

Charles Collins, brother.of the plaintiff, stated that.be had let the mare to Thomas 'Brightwell, at 10s. a week. The mare belonged to his (witness's) brother William), and was worth about £50.

William Dawson, law clerk stated that on the 2nd October, he made a formal demand to defendant, and two days afterwards witness tendered defendant fifteen sovereigns. T. Lloyd, hotelkeeper, considered the value of the horse to be about £50. If witness wanted the animal he would give him that amount for it.

Denis Carroll was of opinion that the man was worth between £AQ and MO. Witness would give .£4O for the animal.

Mr. Hamerton applied for a non-suit. The Bench stated, that, had the proper steps been taken by the solicitor of the owner ox fcbe home, ihe sale might baVG been prevented, but neither the stabling, nor the amount of the claim, had been paid. Judgment for defendant^ with costs. Mr. Parrington gave notice of appeal. ALLEGED DOG POISONING.

J. Goodfellow v. J. Burton. — Claim for ;622 2s. Mr. Parrington for plaintiff, Mr. Barleyman for defendant. This was an action for trespass, to recover the value of a retriever dog, which plaintiff alleged had been poisoned by defendant, or through his agency, on the 22nd September last.

J. B. Innes, one of the proprietors of the Hawera and Normanby Star, stated that defendant had instructed him to put a notice in the Star with reference to poison being laid on his land. [Notice produced.] Llewelln E. Prichard, chemist, stated that on the 13th September he sold some strychnine to defendant, an entry of which was made in the poison book produced. Witness had poisoned several dogs, and watched the effects. Generally, about ten or twenty minutes after the poison administered, t&e tfogs were seized with convulsions, and death ensued in the course of about two hours. Thirst was one of the symptoms of poisoning, and dogs, as a rule, would make for water. Witness had known such to be the case in one or two instances.

James Goodfellow, plaintiff, stated he was a huilder, and resided with Mr. Tingey. There was nothing to prevent dogs straying on the premises of defendant. Witness had a retriever dog, which he invariably kept tied up at night ; hut on the night of the 21st September, witness did not put the dog on the chain. On the following morning, about seven o'clock, witness found the dog dead in the ditch opposite Mr. Borrie's house — about 50 or GO chains from the brewery. The hociy was quite warm, and there was froth about the mouth, which was partly open, the tail being rigid, and . the claws contracted. There was no water in the ditch between where the, dog lay and the brewery. Witness had experience of the poisoning of cats and dogs by strychnine; Defendant never complained to witness about his dog, and he never knew it to do any injury or damage. Heard defendant complain to Mr. Tingey, on one 'occasion, that his dog had been killing his (defen-

dant's) ducks. Witness was offered 4>5, two or three timest for the dog, when it was three or four months old ; but he refused i!o sell. In fact, he would not sell at all, as he could not replace the breed. Witness did not think he could replace the dog for any sum. The dog was 12 months old, and witness had partly trained it himself. The father was a dog owned by Capt. Gibbons, which had taken the first prize in Nelson, and the mother was owned by Dr. Croft, and had taken the first prize in Patea. Cross-examined by Mr. Barleyman — The dog was buried about half-an-hour after witness found it, and it was exhumed five days afterwards. So far as witness could say, there was no water on the defendant's premises. To the Bench— Dr. Croft never sells any of his pups for .less than £d or £i t Witness got a present of the two dogs from that gentleman. Joseph Tingey, painter, knew the plain* tiff's dog, which was a brother to. the one witness had, but could not say whether 1 or not it had died a natural' death, as he knew nothing of the symptoms of poisoning. The dog was very quiet, and was , generally kept tied up at night ; but on the 21st September, the weather was boisterous, and they could not find the dog. Defendant threatened to destroy witness's dog three or four times, and offered a pig for it, but as defendant stated he wanted to destroy it, witness refused to let him have the dog.

Cross-examined — Plaintiff's dog was not fond of- ducks — (laughter) — and witness never saw the dog touch any ducks. Witness was not a professional dog fan*'*cier, but he valued dogs, just as another person might value a well-trained horse. He considered defendant's dog worth £25.

George Tucker stated he was an apothecary and accoucheur. Witness had made an examination of the defendant's dog. Mr. Barleyman objected to the witness giving evidence, unless there was proof of his competency as a medical witness* fenfc the Bench, disallowed the objection, stating that an apothecary was presumed to know the effects of drugs. Witness stated that the pupils of the eyes were swollen, the legs contracted, and the hair on the spine was quite rough. Strychnine gene ally produced such symptoms. • Witness was asked to make a post-mortem examination, but he 'Considered it quite unnecessary to do. so. Witness had had a good deal of experience in London with cat and dog poisoning : it was frequently done in the surgeries where witness had been engaged. Crosa-examinei — Witness 'was quite competent to determine the cause of death, from external symptoms, five days* after death. Strychnine would not act on the pupil of the eye in a human being the same as it would do in a dog. The extremities in a human being would get contracted, after poisoning, the^same as a dog. Witness would be able to tell, from external symptoms, .whether a human being had died from the effects of strych- ■ nine.

Re-examined — There were particular symptoms always in cases of poisoning by strychnine.

Sergeant Cahill stated he was present when plaintiff found hia dog. Witness thought there was water between where the dog was found and the brewery, but ' was not quite certain.

Mr. Barleyman asked for a nonsuit, and quoted from " Taylor on Medical Jurisprudence" to show that external symptoms from poisoning were not different from those found in cases of violent death. There was abundance of water on the defendant's premises, and the dog, if poisoned there, would have been able to satisfy its thirst.

Mr. Parrington contended that the fact of defendant; purchasing the poison, and inserting a' notice in the Stab, was conclusive proof of an intention to poison. The plaintiff could not be expected to actually prove that the poison had been administered, because, in all probability, that was done at night, when everybody was in bed.

The Bench having expressed a wish to

Charles Seccomb was called, .and stated that he complained several times about defendant's and Mr. Tmgey's dogs disturbing the poultry. There was always water on. defendant's premises. Witness knew tbe dogs since they were pups, and did not consider- them of any value. He caught them killing ducks. They were no use, except for ornament.

Cross-examined by Mr. Parrington — Defendant told witness he was going to lay poison, but he' never saw any laid down.

George Hellier stated he would not take a dog of that [retriever] breed for a gift, unless it had been trained. Witness got three guineas for training. ■ Retriever dogs, when untrained, were mischievous ; all sporting dogs were. They would worry almost anything. All sporting dogs would take notice of poultry and game of any kind.

Charles Henry McCutehan, sen., stated that the value of dogs would depend upon the breeding, training, and tbe way they turned out after training. It would take about six to eight mouths to thoroughly train a dbg. Witness looked upon the plaintiff's and Mr. Tingey 's dogs as merely water-dogs. He saw them one night pursuing ducks. He could not say what their value was. For his part, he would not feed them. If they were properly trained, witnesß considered they would be worth £20.

The Bench were of. opinion that the evidence was not sufficiently conclusive, and although there were suspicious circumstances, there was nothing to show that defendant had t mpted the dog off the highway. Judgment would, therefore, be given for defendant, with costs.

J. Tingey v. J. Burton.— Mr. Parrington, for plaintiff, elected to take a nonsuit. Mr. Barleyman for defendant. Judgment for defendant, with costs.