LAW AXD rOLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4297, 21 August 1875, Page 1 (Supplement)

LAW AXD rOLICE.

i KESIPENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, i Fridav. [Be/or® P. T>. Yen ton, Esq., K.M.] Tub ordinary weekly sitting for the determination 1 of small debts claims was held this morning:, and the following business disposed of: — UXDE 'EXDED CASES ( JUDGMENT FOR Pi AI NT] !'ys).—John Byan v. John Short, claim £S; John Cosgrave v. John Breene, £19 5s £1; Lydia Lucas v. Edward Woodirs.n, 10s; Frederick Mills v. Michael ' Corcoran ; George Akers v. William Yeates, |£3. Adjoirned.—EL Anderson v. H. Wright. The following was the only defended cause I on the li it:— | W. M. F. IIoclton" v. Jambs Borley.— , Clnim i>. Mr. He'sketh appeared for the ; plaintiff; Mr. Joy for the defendant. This | was an sotion to recover for damage, alleged jby the plaintiff to have been done by the defendant under the following cironm- ! stances:—A person named Trebilcock bought a pig for Borley, but be placed it in pixintzfTs ' paddock- Trebilcock and plaintiff were -on friendly terms, and there was no arrangement as to the paddock charges. Borley, however, went to plaintiff's house and demanded the pig, which was refused until five shillings were paid. The defendant, as the pig was j laced there without his consent, refused to pay the five shillings, and said be would, at his own risk, obtain it. At this time a d- >g was brought," which frightened the other pigs belonging to the plaintiff, anrongst them two sows with ■their farrows. The result of this was : stated ti be that the sows lost their i .flesh and milk ; the young pigs oould not be rear'jd advantageously for the market, and plaintiff liad to sell them at a sacrifice of at least tl. ree pound. The other damage was made up for broken fences and other Bmall injuries, v.ith the increased expenses caused to the plaintiff in repairing such damage. The defenilant denied that the dog was his. He also dnied the other material allegations. Joseph Andrew, a blacksmith, said he met the defendant, who asked him whether he had a dog that would catch a pig. Witness replied that he had, and went for his dog that he );ept on the chain. The witness by means of his dog caught the pig required, but he sa-v.no damage done. When the witness met Mr. Borley, Mr. Borley had his dog with him. Witness suggested that Borluy's dig,should be tied, so that the tw« would not tight. The plaintiff's wife swore to the fast of the plaintiff warning the defendant aotito go into the paddock with his dog. The'defendant put a totally distinct const ruction upon the facts. The differer.ee wm about the ss, which the defendant uaid e:ther Trebilcock or a Mr. Johns would pay. That Houlton then warned him inot to do ;ny damage. The defendant took this to mean to take the pig but do no harm. He never heard of.the claim now made until ; ±he 128 th o£ July. The facts occurred in the i ibeginning of May. Each of the parties to , the fiction committed himself to a positive • and most emphatic denial of the testimony I ggsen by the other, <which had a very uupleamnt (fleet upon lib e mind of the Court aadiupon those who were present Several witnesseß were examined as to matters of detail. 1 lis Worship .having heard counsel on be ih sides, gaste judgment for the defendant .