MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 5007, 15 May 1889, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TlMAßU— Tuesday, May 14.

(Before O. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.)

The case Davidson v. R. Edgeworth, claim £47, made up of claim for general and special damages, loss of employment, medical attendance and medicine, through plaintiff being kicked by defendant’s horse (heard partly at Temuka last week), was then called on. «. Mr Huy appeared for plaintiff, and Mr White for defendants

The latter, called by Mr White, said that he bad been at the Timnru Show with an entire horse. Had shown horses and mares at shows in the colony during the-past eieveu'years, and had never had an accident. On last Timaru show day had gone out by the gateway at 4 o’clock, explaining first that there was a block there, through the gatekeeper not opening it punctually. Took the entire out, there being plenty of room in the gateway, so that no harm was likely to be done to anybody. When he got through the gateway a mare was led through in front of the horse, and tho latter kicked out. Someone then called out for witness to go on, and he did so. The traffic and crush was very great. Had seen the plaintiff after tho accident happened at the show gate, and some weeks later called on him to see how he was getting on. In course of conversation plaintiff never blamed him (witness) for the accident. The first intimation he had of tho case was a letter from Mr. Hay, to which witness had made no reply. It was not true that he was 100 yards from the gate when it opened. His horse was quite quiet and not at all vicious. He accounted for his horse kicking through the mares being led in front of him. Did not hear anyone sing out to “ Keep hack, as the mares are at the gate.” It was not a fact that he was running with the horse that day.

Cross-examined by Mr Hay: Was not excited at all that day. Both entires and mares were scattered about near the gate. Took no particular notice whose horses were first at the gate; he did not own them. He came up straight to the gate, which was almost vacant when he did so. Did not eomo up at an angle in front of Mr Austin’s mares. Davidson was not the first to go out; witness was the first, and was positive that ho had never come up to the gate along by tho gorse hedge. Was in no hurry to get through, and never got out of bis turn—quietly waited to get through. It was untrue that ho had tried to get out of the ground before the others. Never heard a word from the gatekeeper to keep back. It was not a fact that at shows mares were generally led out first of oil. Could not tell in what order they had gone out, as horses, mares, and geldings were mixed up. It was a dangerous thing to lead a horse among mares. In this case Davidson had pulled his mares right in front of his horse. Latter was quiet; was not “ playing up ” as described by Mr Mundell.

This was the case, and after counsel had addressed the court His Worship intimated that he would deliver judgment at Temuka. A. Selbie v. E, T.vßhodes, claim £l2 10s. The sum of £7los was paid into court, being wages at £1 per we6k, as said by defendant to have been agreed on, Mr Raymond for the plaintiff, and Mr Perry for the defendant. Mr Raymond stated the short facts of the case. Plaintiff claimed, on agreement made at harvest time with Mr Park, the manager for the defendant, for wages at £2 per week. Previous to this there had been an agreement that plaintiff should bo paid £1 a week, but on threshing time he alleged that a new agreement was made, whereby he was to bo paid £2. In addition to carrying out his duties under one agreement, he did extra work under the other, for which he claimed the extra payment. Selbie, Walters, and M. Tapley were called in support of Mr Bay? mond’s opening, and Mr Perry then stated for tho defence that Mr Park had specially agreed Seiche's wages should be £1 par week whilst engaged at harvest time. This amount the defendant had always been ready to pay him, and had handed into court. What Selbie had to do was to make himself generally useful at tho mill, load, tally, brand or do anything that was required of him. There was nothing said about extra work or extra pay. He (Mr Perry) would call evidence to show that Selbie had, in the middle of tho harvest and threshing, in conversation with Cosgrove and Harmor, stated that he (Selbie) was getting £1 a week, Mr Perry then called Messrs Park, Cosgrove, Harner, and A. Drysdale, who corroborated facts as stated by Mr Perry, Mr Drysdale. as an expert thresher, stating that £1 a week for the work done by Selbie was a fair wage. After counsel had addresed the court, Hie Worship gave judgment for the amount paid into court.