DISTRICT COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 829, 10 December 1878, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

CIVIL SITTING. THIS DAY. (Before His Honor District Jud?e Ward.) His Honor took his seat on the Bench shortly after eleven o'clock. NOME V. I'ATEESOJf. This was an action brought by George Henry Norio to recover from Alexander Paterson the sum of L2OO, damages sustained by the plaintiff through having been severely bitten by a ferocious dog in the custody of the defendantMr. Hamersley (of Timaru) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. O'Meagher for the defendant.

The facts of the case will be fresh in the memory of our readers. The plaintiff, ' on the sth September last, went into an outhouse or stable at the Northern Hotel for the purpose of obtaining some food for pigeons. The dog was lying in the stable or outhouse near the bag containing the food. The plaintiff, after having stroked the dog, stooped down to take a handful of grain from the bag. The dog ' thereupon seized the plaintiff by the face, inflicting a severe wound upon his right cheek. This was sewn up by Dr. Garland, who gave evidence as to the nature and extent of the injuries. The plaintiff in his evidence stated that he had applied to Mr. Paterson for payment for the injuries he had received, and had undertaken to take LSO rather than go to Court, The defendant had stated to him that the dog was not his property, but belonged to Mr. Weedon, who had 'left the district, He (the defendant) then promised that he would write to Mr. Weedon, and endeavor : to txet the matter settled, but he had afterwards refused to have anything'to do with the business, as Mr. Weedon had gone away. Arthur Toms, Inspector of Nuisances, was called, and proved that the dog was registered in the defendant's name. Daniel Lynch gave evidence to the effect that on the dog in question arriving in Oaniaru, he had taken him to Mr. Patcrson's house ; but in cross-examination he said that he had taken the dog from Mr. Paterson's house to Paterson and Weedon's stables. He did not consider the dog a savage animal, and had frequently seen children playing with him. Evidence was, however, called for the plaintiff, to show that the dog had previously bitten a man on°the leg while on the chain. The next witness called for the plaintiff, however, explained that previous to biting the man, the person in question had thrown a stone at the dog and otherwise tormented the animal. F.or the defence Mr. O'Meagher endeavored to show that the plaintiff had frequently been in the habit of tormenting the dog ; but this was distinctly denied by the plaintiff. Another witness for the plaintiff, however, stated that he had seen the plaintiff tormenting the dog frequently. On the conclusion of the plain- j tiff's case, Mr. O'Meagher argued that the plaintiff must bo non-suited, as the place in which the affair took place was not a public place. His Honor over-ruled the* point, saying that although the stable in question "was not a public place, the plaintiff had still a right of action at common law. Mr. O'Meagher then urged that the plaintiff not having proved the scienter he must be non-suited. His Honor again, however, over-ruled the objection, and the evidence of the defendant was taken. Mr-. Paterson stated that although he had been originally the owner of the dog, he was not so at the time of the occurrence ous of which the action arose, having previously given the dog to Mr. Weedon. Judgment was then given for the defendant, with posts, [Left sitting.]