RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3306, 10 September 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MON'DAV, Bth SKPTKMBKK. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., E.M.)

Clark 0. Henry.- -Mr E. Cook moved for a re-hearing in the case of Clark v. Henry, a claim for rent, kc., and which was decided on Friday last in favour of Clark. The grounds upon which he moved were : That there was no evidence of the plaintiffs title, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that it Mas a misdirection in point of law. Mr Stewart submitted that there should be no re-hearing. After the case had been argued for over an hour, His Worship declined the application, remarking that he did not see any reason for disturbing the decision already given. Bethunc v. Marshall.—Claim of £15 6a,

j for sheep killed aad worried by, it was alleged, a (log owned by defendant. Mr Hariris appeared for plaintiff, a butcher in Great King street, and Mr Haggttfc for defendant, a settler at Fine Hill. watf no evidence to show that the dog had driven the sheep out of the paddock in which they were grazing, but they were seen grazing unmolested in the .paddock, which was situate in the Norch-East Valley district, one evening, ■ and next morning were seen half a mile away, chased by defendant's dog. A number of witnesses deposed to ths identity of the clog. The defendant, who lived about half a mile away, said he locked up his dog every night, and did so on this occasion, ami that on the morning in question he let him loose about six o'clock, and it was only ten minutes away out of his sight when he saw it chasing a sheep. His Worship considered the evidence directly pointed to the fact that nothing was heard or seen of defendant's dog until it was seen chasing the sheep on the road line uear defendant's. In a case of ttiia kind every point required direct proof, and it was just a? likely as not that any other dog drove them oat of the paddock. It did not follow that because defendant's dog rushed out on a flock df sheep passing the house, that it would have been among the sheep ia Be* thune's paddock all night. Defendant was, however, liable for the one'sheep that his dog chased near his place. Judgment for defendant for 125,-the value of that sheep, together with costs. Mr Haggitt asked if the defendant would be saddled with all the costs. His Worship -waa understood to say he would have to pay them all. Fraserf. liamgan.—Claim of £9 12k, for catting timber. Mr Howorta appeared lor

thb plaintiff, and Mr Shaptor for defendant. Tho defence waa that tho defendant had caWred into an arrangement with Kelly, tho man upon whose hind tho timber was cut, that be (Kelly) should cut tho timber and supply it to him at a certain rate, and that ho had nothidg to do with whoever cat it. His Worship remarked that the whole business had b«ton bungled from beginning to end, and non-suited plaintiff. Jupcs r. M'Fermi.—Claim of £2 2a, for helping in the unloading of defendant's waggon, and attending to his horses for some days. Judgment by default for plaintiff in. the amount claimed, together with costs.