MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20707, 3 May 1929, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Oi Thursday, May 2. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.)

DEFAULT CASES. Judgment for plaintiffs wae given in the following undefended cases:—G. A. Lawson v. G. Gladstone Hill (Wellington), claim £.17 'Bs Od, for balance of salary and travelling exiieusos due, with costs (£2 16s); John Edward Butler. Ltd. v. Perciv-al Olorenshaw (East Oxford), claim £7 10a 6d for goods supplied, with costs (£1 10s 0d); J. Griffiths v. F. Harper. ilaim £4 18s sd, for goods supplied, with costs (£1- 3s 6d); Paterson Bros. v. Duncan M. Stewart (Scargill), claim £8 Bs. for goods supplied, with costa (£1 12s Od); Charles Barnett v. Janies Edward Percy, claim £1 Is 4d, for goods supplied, with costs (10s). JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.

C. G. Smith v, T. F. Mulhone, claim £7 Is 2d, on a judgment of the court.— Tho judgment debtor did not appear, end was ordered tc pay the full amount, with costs (12s), forthwith, in default seven days’ imprisonment. Adams Bros, v, A. W, C. Macdonald, claim £lO 8s 3d on a judgment of the court.—There was no appearance of the debtor, who was ordered to pay the amount, with costs (21s) immediately, in default 11 days’ imprisonment. INJURY - TO A HORSE,

Janies Higgle (Milton) claimed Iron; Robert O’Connell Sliiel £25 as general damages and £134 13s aa special damages in respec' to expense and loss incurred by the defendant and damage to and depreciation in the value of a horse, caused by a motor car driven by the defendant colliding with a horse riddden by the plaintiff on Merton bridge in November last.—Mr W. L. Moore appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr P. S. Anderson for the defendant.—Evidence as to injuries received by the plaintiff was given by Margaret Biggie, wife of the plaintiff, who stated that for nearly two months after tin- accident her husband had to receive constant treatment. The horse was perfectly quiet prior to the accident She could ride it with a child sitting in front of her, and it would go past anything, but now it was very wild.—Edward Percy Appolbee, who had ridden the horse before the accident, stated that it was one of the best horses of its stamp that he had ever seen, and in Jiig opinion it would 1 have been worth between £7O and £BO in : a year or two. Since the accident, how- i ever, it could neither be ridden nor driven i satisfactorily, and was practically useless.—John Rochefort anil Alexander Reid gave along similar lines.—Evi- ‘ dcnco as to his injuries was given by the plaintiff, who stated the the horse wa s now in snob a condition that ho intended to shoot it.—For the defence William Dempster Snowball, a qualified veterinary surgeon, stated that he had examined the horse under dispute twice since the accident, and had found no trace of permanent injury, although it was inclined to be restive in harness.—William Hastr, a farmer, who was with the previous witness during both examination? gave corroborative evidence, and stale-i tliat in his opinion the horse was worth from £lO to £ls.—The magistrate sair tnere Had been considerable exaggeration on the part of the more immediate witnesses. and the evidence for the defence was the more reliable. Nevertheless, there wn s a possibility that the horse was not so reliable as it was prior to theaccident. Judgment would be given for’ £lu, in addition to the amount nli-eadv paid into court f£o7 8s). wrb costs (£] 4s) and solicitor’s fee (£2 2s). The question of witnesses’ expenses was left fori the clerk of the court to arrange. 1