RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, Tuesday, 27th October, 1868. (Before T. W. Parker, Esq., J.P.)

North Otago Times, Volume XI, Issue 359, 30 October 1868, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, Tuesday, 27th October, 1868. (Before T. W. Parker, Esq., J.P.)

H. Gordon was brought up on warrant, issued in default of appearance to summons .on the 24th instant, charged with furious riding on the 22nd instant. He pleaded guilty. Mr Walter Booth stated tha.t on Thursday evening last as he was coming into town, prisoner was riding very furiously. He very narrowly escaped running into Mr Fenwick's carriage. Shortly afterwards witness saw accused dismounted, apparently having been thrown, and trying to remount his horse. "Witness saw that lie was intoxicated and quite unable to manage his horse. Offered to assist him to remount, on condition that he would walk his horse into town. Accused passed him, witness, again, riding his hardest, and it was a, wonder that no person was run over. The Magistrate commented severely upon the reprehensible practice of which some persons were guilty in racing their horses upon the public roads, to the imminent danger of passengers. On the present occasion he understood that some children escaped being run over almost by a miracle. Fined L3 and costs 10s. 6d. Frederick Schluter was summoned for exposing certain liquors for sale at the Boundary Creek HoteL Plea, Not Guilty. Sergeant Bullen stated that the license of the Boundary Creek Hotel was transferred at last licensing meeting from defendant to Mr Dansey, but the house had not yet been taken possession of by the licensee, the premises not being fit for occupation. Having proved the exposure for sale, Sergeant Bullen stated that defendant had admitted the liquor so exposed to be his own personal property. Defendant had been cautioned a fortnight ago. Fined 30s., and 5s. 6d. costs. CIVIL CASES. Sumpter v. ITeil M'Kay.— Claim L6 10s., for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Watson v. King.— Claim, L6 Is. 6d. Defendant pleaded a set off of L15 for aevices of his son, Andrew Kiiig, &s an apprentice, and 153. money lent. Mr O'Meagher for plaintiff, submitted that the appreutice himself, although a minor, was fully entitled to sue and recover in his own name, the present defendant could not, therefore, plead a debt owing to his son as a set-off against a debt owed by himself. By the Imperial Act relating to masters and servants, an aprenfcice could not sue his master for any sum exceeding L10. He should submit, therefore, that the apprentice could not plead a set-off exceeding that amount. The Magistrate ruled that the claim for his son's services could not be pleaded as a set-off by the defendant. The son must sue in his own name. As* to the 15s. claimed for money lent, defendant, being sworn, stated that the money was lent in 1864. After some enquiry into the case, defendant withdrew the set off of los. claimed, and judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with 2s. 6d. costs. Card v. Jones.— Claim, L12 10s. 6d. Judgment for plaintiff, with 17s. coats. Schluter v. Johnson. — Claim tor a certain cow and increase, to wit, a steer and calf or their value, viz., L20. Mr O'Meagher for defendant. Plaintiff said he bought this beast when a heifer with two cows and calves, the heifer was in calf, in May, 1866, of Suisted and Orbelh The heifer was branded with A. on the near side. Afterwards bought some heifers, which he turned out on his ground at Papakaio plain. Shortly afterwards he lost sight of this beast, and did not see it again till about a week ago. Defendant was driving some cattle paat his house on Thursday last, and he (plaintiff) saw the cow in the mob, and identified it. It was a dark brown cow, with a little white underneath near the fore-legs, and with small horns. The calf with the cow was a bull-calf, white and spotted, about six months pjd. The steer he could not describe, but it was, he believed the calf of the previous year. The value of the steer would be about L10, and of the cow and calf about IA.H. Saw the cow in White's paddock yesterday. Believed it still to be the one he had lost. Kever sold or parted with the cow in any way. Cross-examined by Mr O'Meagher. — When I bought the cattle I could not get very close to them, because they were wild. They had long hair at the time, and the brands were not distinct. I did not notice the brand of the cow I saw in White's paddock. I swear positively that it is the same that I lost. I know her by her color and the patch of white underneath. I have seen cows of the same color before. I claim the bull-calf because it runs with the cow. It is possible that the calf is not her progeny. Sometimes calves are put to other cows. My son was with mo when I bought the heifer. _ Four other witnesses were examined on the plaintiff's side, two of them, viz., Henry Schluter and George Parsons, swore positively to the identity of the cow and stated that they had been out to see her on the previous day. Mr O Meagher, in opening the defendant's case, said that the evidence of the plaintiff was simply valueless, and that of the witnesses, Henry Schluter and Parsons, was the only evidence on which the plaintiff could rely, and after His Worship had heard the evidence for the defence, he could come to no other conclusion than that with regard to the cow in question, it was clearly a case of mistaken identity. Mistakes of this kind were very easily made, seeing that there were so very few varieties of color and appearance in cows generally, and that a red cow with a white spot on the forehead and incurved horns, was by no means a rarity, and that had the witnesses Schleuter and Parsons not inspected the cow on the previous day, which they did, he thought, with the intention of making up their minds that the cow belonged to the plaintiff, it was very probable that their evidence would not have appeared to be soconclusire, particularly as two years had elapsed since they had previously seen her. He would show by evidence that the cow in question had been purchased from the same person and out of the same mob of cattle as that purchased by Schluter, and that it bore a similar brand. As to the steer and the calf, there was no evidence whatever to show that either of them was the progeny of the cow. He then called four witnesses, including the defendant, whose evidence went to show that the cow now in possession of defendant had been purchased by one Harris of Messrs Suisted and Orbell, about the time of the plaintiff's purchase of a similar animal. The coir waa the property of Harris until about three weeks ago, when it was sold by him to defendant. His Worship took time to consider judgment.

W«DNE8DAT, 28th OCTOBER, 1868. (Before 8. Gibba, Esq., J.P.) Charles Townsend was fined 20s. for drunkenness and disorderly conduct at the Empire Hotel on the previous day. '[Thursday's proceedings shall appear in our next.]