RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 18, 22 January 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before J. Poynter, Esq., R.M.] Monday, January 21. J. G. Gove v. George Hooper. Mr A. Pitt, for plaintiff, Mr H. Adams, for defendant. To recover the sum of £19 for work and materials. The sum of £9 7s. was admitted, and paid into Court. The evidence of plaintiff, his son, and John Scott was taken to show that the work was done, and that a fair price was charged for it. Defendant set forth in evidence, that a great deal of plaiutiff's claim was an overcharge, and that he gave no orders for a portion of the work. He called J. W. Bond to prove that the charges were excessive. Robert Gillespie proved that defendant had complained during the progress of the work. The case occupied the Court for several hours ; and upou a patient hearing of the evidence, the Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff, for £15 6s. 6d. J. W. Schroder v. John Lammas, claim £50. Mr Kiugdon, for plaintiff, Mr A. Pitt, for defendant. This was an action to recover the value of a horse, alleged to have been injured, whilst being shod in defendant's shop. Evidence was taken at great length on both sides ; plaintiff affirming that the horse was quite healthy: when sent to be shod, and that he died the following day, and producing evidence

to prove tbat whilst at the shop he received several severe kicks. Mr. Newton said the horse died from rupture of the diaphragm, which might have been caused by a blow or kick, aud that he found three distinct bruises on the horse's belly. For the defence it was denied that the horse received any injury whilst in the shop, and that it left it in perfect good health. Mr Pitt contended that it was possible the horse might have received injury after leaving the shop, aud called Mr Brock, V. S., who stated that the in. jury might have beeu caused by a fall or sudden jerk. After a careful summing up of the evidence, his Worship said it | had not been clearly proved that the injuries to the horse had been inflicted iu the blacksmith's shop, aud if he had received injuries there it had not been proved they were the cause of death. He would therefore nonsuit the plaintiff, with costs. '■■ j !