RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4167, 26 June 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

Wednesday, 2(ith June. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., X.M ) Xolau ('. Bank of Xi'iv Zealand. --This ease wan finally decided liymutu.il consent, judgment being given for plaintiff for £15 anil costs. Richard Cameron r. R. S. Brooke. —Claim for six weeks' salary, i"24, less £3 Bs, furnishings supplied. Tin's ciise had been adjourned to allow the defendant to give evidence. Eichard Brooke deposed that from the 11th May to the 2nd June, he employed the plaintiff, who had stated that he came from America to his brother, whom he thought very well off, but on arrival here he found him insolvent. The plaintff said he would be glad of any employment for a remuneration, and witness agreed to pay his hotel expenses, and give him a specified salary after seeing his work. The plaintiff, who professed to have a thorough knowledge of the American market, witness found utterly illiterate. Some goods, including an ivory card case, two walking sticks, pair ear rings, a fan, and several valuable inlaid boxes, which had been under the plaintiffs charge, were missing. The plaintiff said he was engaged to be married. His Worship, in delivering judgment, remarked that there was no agreement proved, and thought £3 a week sufficient for the plaintiff's services. The plaintiff -admitted having received £3 Bs, and a suit of clothes worth £C> ss. Altogether, theie were £11 13s, against £!) for three weeks' services, without | reference to the missing articles. Judgment i must be for the defendant. Mr Aldridge's client had not paid the hearing fee, which it was customary to pay at the termination of j each case. .His Worship: In tLis case the i hearing fee is not paid. I must look after the revenue, and it is imperative forme to do so. Mr Aldridge: There is no doubt it will be paid. His Worship : Unless the profession take the responsibility, I will insist upon the hearing fee j being paid beforehand. Mr Aldridge intimated j his willingness to pay the hearing fee, and His Worship instructed the bailiff to collect the fees from plaintiffs before administering the oath. .Tolm Cooper v. Mary Rogers.—Claim to recover possession of a house in Walker street. Judgment for plaintiff, for 8s with costs, and an order to recover possession was issued. Connor v. Eoardman. —This was a judgment summons, for LlO 2s and authority to get possession of a house. Mr A. Bathgate appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant complained that the judgment had been given in his absence. He got LSO for two months' work as painter at fcjwitzers, but had only been employed for a week at Invercargill, where he had been for about two months. The case was continued for 14 days. Judgment went by default for the plaintiffs, with costs, in the following cases' :—Herbert, Haynes, and Co. v. John A. Moffatt, dishonoured cheque, Ll3 Ids 4d; A. and T. Burt v. Wm. He.vitt (G'rahamstown), cash lent, J/21 r« ; Wm. Carver and Co. v. Richard W. Daniel (Queenstown), work performed, Ll4 lls; Wm. (joodison v. Wm. Hendley, loan of horse and cart, LIT 10s; Gregg and Co. v. Win. O'Xeil, furni hings .supplied, LIT) Kits 8d ; John Mackay v. John Campbell, wages due, Lf.fls. • Archibald Lawson v. M'Donald and Doring. —Claim of L">, alleged damages for trespass by cattle on the plaintiff's premisus at the Kai-koi-ni Valley. Mr A. Bathgate apptared for the plaintiff, and Mr Denniston for the defendant. The evidence went to show that a mob of cattle belonging to the defendants and Messrs Goodison and Wallace were recently being driveu [past the premises of the plaintiff, who is a flax dresser, and a cow rushed away and destroyed some fiuining and fences. Mr Denniston contended that as the plaintiff had not proved that defendant's cattle did the damage, he Im«J no points to answer, and really knew not how to frame the defendant's case. His "Worship :It is for you to say what you will do for your client's interest. I .say there is a case to an- ' swer. Mr Denniston repeated his objection, \- lifting his hands and apparently shrugging his shoulders. His Worship : I say there must be [ho "posture-waking" and shrugging of ; shoulders here. Mi Denniston : I disclaim \ any idea of "posture-making." I must also ' preserve my rights. I was not nhrugging my shoulders, as that is not fit conduct becoming a gentleman. I disclaim anything of the kind. I know how to conduct myself in Court. lam j. of opinion— His Worship: As it has been already laid down in the Supreme Court, \ counsel must not give an opinion ; they may , submit. Mr Deuniston : Then I submit, with very great reluctance. His Worship: There has been a case to prove. The fact of M'Donald and Doring having some of those cattle makes them responsible. Air Dennis- . ton : One of the witnesses simply says that one of the.cattle did the damage. What am Ito } prove? It is for the plaintiff to prove whose . cattle it was that did the damage. lam always ? ready and wiling to pay the_ utmost deference to the Bench. Your Worship seems to have " decided — His Worship : The Court prejudges >' nothing. Mr Denniston : I hope your Worship will not consider my action as disrespectJ ful to the Con it. His Worship: It is very natural for " young counsel" to be very V' zealous. Mr Deuniston rose immediately, and [i interpolated an objection to the statement. His Worship : However, " young counsel" are * apt to make objections. Mr Denniston: 1 \ submit that several years' practice in the Resi- '* dent Magistrate's Court entitles me to more c consideration. I object to being called a f "young counsel/ It goes forth in the papers, ;" and lias a bad effect. I decidedly object to the 11 statement. —D. Cameron, the defendant's cattle le driver, deposed that the animal that did the .'i damage was not M'Donald and Doring's. His *j Worship gave judgment for the defendants. Seeger v. M'Lean.—Mr Sinclair, who ap- ! L peared for the defendant, questioned the'juris- ' diction of the Court, no proof of service of 1 summons having been given. The objection ! u was sustained. '| l John M'Laughlin v. James M'Gill.—Claim '} of L2O, damages from bite of a dog, whereby I 1* the plaintiff was prevented from carrying on "' his business. Mr Deuniston appeared for the ■"" plaintiff, and Mr Joyce for the defendant. On ! le the application of Mr Denniston, the words s' " while knowing that the said dog was of a °\ very tierce and mischievous nature " in the "-', declaration were struck out, this technicality 1J i not being required in the Resident Magistrate's '" Court. The evidence went to show that the slj plaintiff, who is a milkman, was bitten severely " on the left hand by tho defendant's dog. Dr !ll> Murphy attended the plaintiff. The defendant "j s offered'plaintiff L2 to settle the case out of . Court. Several witnesses declared that the 111 dog was a dangerous animal, and others that it , )U\ was an affectionate creature. Mr Joyce moved pc for a nonsuit, on the ground that it was not a ? public place where the injury was inflicted, and I°, cited the celebrated case of JBc.it v. Larnaeji. 1? His Worship said that while he was still of the Ll°~ opinion at that time laid down, it was neces'Vf sary to prove the extent of injuries received in j " a private place. In the case of Bust v. Larnach, t there was no evidence to prove that the dog had previously attacked anybody. It was in a room that that attack took place, and^ the owner might have been liable to damages if he knew anything about the mischievous nature of vie- the dog. The dog in that" case was an intelliade gent dog, having occasionally taken the paper this fr.nn the newspaper runner. These cases were on not entirely analagous, as several parties have 'ks- complainel of the mischievous character of the .to defendant's dog. The case was adjourned till nig- .Friday, to allow Mr Denniston to reply on the lon nonsuit point, specially with regard to the had meaning of the words " public place." >wn Robert Snaddon v. John Andrews (Mosgiel). iow —-Claim of 1A 8s Sd, balance of wages due, and ' n 1/20 for alleged wrongful dismissal. Mr Tjewis ?ro- appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Aldridtm for

the defendant The evidence went to show that the plaintiff, ;who recently arrived here by the City of Duuedin, was engaged as ploughman by the defendant at L 55 a year, with board and lodging.. Witness refused to .work 'from six in the^morhirig till1 eight o'clock at night. He offered to work from' six to six. The case was adjourned till Tuesday, Cth July. At five p.m. the Court adjourned till Monday. '' '■