RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1951, 22 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■ .1-1 ■■!■! -- (Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., E.M.) Monday, July 20. T. Kilkelly, for drunken and disorderly conduct in Kelvin street, on Saturday night, waß fined 10a, aud costs, or in default, 24 hours' imprisonment. The fine was paid. Tuesday, July 21. Ferrar v. Russell. — Adjourned till the 4th proximo. Harrop v. Heytoood. — Plaintiff sued to recover the sum of £5 Bs, balance due for board and lodging. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, 13s. At this stage of the proceedings, Mr Harvey made an application for coats in a case (Lockhart v. M'Kenzio) which had been withdrawn by the plaintiff only a very short time before the hour appointed for hearing it, and without the plaintiff having given timely notice of withdrawal to the defendant, who had in consequence gone to the expense of engaging a legal advißer, bringing a witness from the Mokomoko, and of himself coming from that place to town. His Worship was cle&rly of opinion that, under the circumatanoes, the defendant was entitled to reasonable costs, which would accordingly be i allowed to the extent of £2 I la.

Chalmers v. Davidson.— -Mr Sarvoy for the laintiff, and Mr Macrlonald for the defendant. Mr Harvey explaiued tho casa as baing one in rhioh the plaintiff" sought to recover the sum of 125 for the deterioration in the value of a horse, nd the expenses incurred iv consequence of the efendant having; kept tha sail h>r3e in his O33ea3ion without impounding him or making ; publicly known that he wa3 in his pD3*e*9i>n, he animal being tho prODevfey of thi plaintiff, and aving strayed away from a paidock at E la:iale, and gone to defendant's farm at the Tuturau, ayond tho Mataura. Sis witnesses wore xamined, exclusive of the pUinriff and the .efondant. The plaintiff' 3 case w« this : — Some ime ago the plaintiff bought a rom horse, with . view to selling him again after ha had got into ondition, the horse b3in» p >or at the time )laintiff bought him. With this end in view, >laintiff put the animal under the care of a i-iend — Mr Thomas Dawson— who was to feed he horse, use him occasionally, and bi re3pon« ible for his safety. The horse improved and ;ot into good condition in Mr Dawsoa'a hands, >ut towards the end of Miy ho escaped from a >addock at Eiendale, where Mr Dawson had left litn temporarily. Mr Dawson went to some rouble and expense in trying to recover the lorse, and so also did the plaintiff, who did not lear anything of his missing property till Saturlay, the 6:h of June, when he was told by a jarrier named Stewart that his rom horse wa* at jv near Davidson's farm, at the Taturau. Plain;iff went next day to Dxvidson's place, where he saw his horse standing outside the stable, with a saddle on his back. The plaintiff went t j Davidson's house, saw him, spoke to him, and after jorne enquiries concerning tha hiMa, toll Davidson that tha horse was his (plaintiff's) . Davidson admitted that the horse had been knocking about; for some days, and sail that he hid intended riding to church that afternoon. Plaintiff then took the horse away. A f teewu'la he as^rtainad that Davidson had baanusi'ig tin h>rse for cattle mustering ; and seeing that the animal had greatly fallon off in condition since h3 had gone astray, that considerable expense had been incurred in trying to recover him, aad that the whole was the result of Davidson's using tha horse for such hard work as cattle mustering, and of neglecting either to advertise or impound the animal, the plaintiff brought the present action. The evidence for tho defence showed thafc Davidson had only used tho horse oncj at mustering cattle, and that he had not ban overworked on that occasion ; and that his (Davidson's) reason for not advertising or impounding the horse wa3, that he had been given to understand that the horse bsiongelto a friend at Long Bush — Mr J. Mitchell — whom he did not wish to put to any expense. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Worship said that Davidson was clsarly in tho wrong, that he had no right to keep the hor33 in 'ii 3 possession at all, and that he should have taken it to the pound. The plaintiff had, however, substantiated no claim for special damages. The defendant had not taken the horse from tha paddock ; it had strayed to his place ; bat there was no doubt that the horse had been ridden somewhat, and although, it did not appear that the horse had beeu ill-treate I, Davidson had no ri^ht to ride it at all. Judgnent for plaintiff in tlie amount of £2, with costa, £9 17s.

Ie