CIVIL COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 7956, 13 April 1904, Page 4

CIVIL COURT.

Tuesday

(Before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M) Judgment by Default. Judgment by default was entered for plaintiffs in the following eases :—R. Muirooney (Mr Hankins) v. Jas. McDonald, £15 18s 2(1, costs and fee 38s; Malcolm and Wilton (Mr Baldwin) v. J. Currie, £5 ICN 3d, costs and foe 23 s 6d; 0. Smith (Mr Innes) v. E. H. McPartland, £10 17s 10d, costs and foo 30s 6d; G. H. Bennett and Co. (Mr Innes) v. J. H. Trimmer, £10, costs 23s 6d ; U.F.G.A. (Mr Hankins) v. 0. Bergcrson, 19s. costs 5s ; 0. J. Monro (Mr Innes) v. J. Carmody, £5, costs 20s 6d ; U F.C.A. v. J. Edwards, £4 14s 7d, costs and fco 10s; same v. 11. Cl. Richards,' 17s 6d, costs 14s; E. V. Lloyd (Mr Meatyard) v. D. Leahy, £3, costs and ffio 20s; A. W. George (Mr Moore) v. F. Johnston, £1 7s, costs ss. .^heep Worrying. Patrick Kerrigan, of Awahou, fanner, sued Edwnrd Bresslin and William Stevens for £18 Is. Mr Loughnau appeared for plaintiff, Mr Innes for Brcsslin, and Mr Gifford Moore for Stevens. The claim was for the value of nine sheep alleged to have been worried and killed, and five injured by defendants' dogs on July let, 1903, and for general damagos lo a mob of ewas in lamb. £2 13s and 16s costs was paid into court by Stevens. I Mr Imifts submitted there was no case to answer as far as Bresslin was concerned. The latter's dog was too old to have been able to worry sheep. Furthermore, the evidence showed that there I were other dogs seen near tho sheep on the day in quesiion quits able to inflict . the damage. Mr Moore contended that the case against Stevens had been settled by the payment of the £2 13s, which plaintiff had agreed to accept as his share of the damage. _ Judgment was given for plaintiff for *8. ls» with costs £i 12s 6d (less amount paid into court). Alleged Damage From Bath Overflow. The Magistrate gave his decision in tho application of the defendant in the above case to have Wra. Coombs added as a defendant, on the ground that plaintiff's case showed that he also had been guilty of neglence contributing to the damage. .. _ Plaintiff did not join in the application, nor did he actively oppose. After traversing exhaustively the whole of tho authorities quoted, Mr Thomson said plaintiff Jiad the right to choose his defendant, and he did not think the Court should require him to proceed against one he had not chosen. The application was refused. Subsequently the case was proceeded with, argument as to damage being taken. Mr Innce appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Gifford Moore tor defendant. Plaintiff was called to speak to the damage done to a cabinet of drawers. Called by Mr Moore, Wm. Sharp, cabinetmaker, stated that the drawers could be put into good order for 15s. H. W. Scott was examined in detail as to tho statement of damages, which he considered fair and reasonable. Plaintiff was also examined as to the alleged damages. For the defence, it was contended that defendant was not guilty of negligence as he took all the steps in his power to prevent an overflow in the bath. The Magistrate stated that judgment must be given to plaintiff on the ground of negligence. He was not prepared to say off-hand what damage plaintiff was entitled to. He would look through Mb notes and give judgment as to amount next Court day.