RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3571, 11 March 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

— ».. TEMUKA— Wednesday, Mabcii 10th. (Before K. F. Gray and F. Barker, Esqs., J.P.'s.) TOLICB CASKS. Tho following persons were fined m the amount stated for keeping unregistered dogs : —James Varcoe (two dogs), 20s, and costs 7s; R. Anderson (one dog), 10s, and costs; E. Waddel, 20s, and costs 7s. Police v. F. W. Badham. In this case defendant was summoned for having two dogs m his possession, and which were not registered on tho Ist of March. After Constable Guerin bad proved the charge, ho, m answer to defendant, said that when he (witness) visited tho farm, defendant was busy harvesting. Witness declined to answer the question " Were you laid on to do this ?" and tho Bench held the question was irrelevant. Defendant then Baid that this was tho first year he had foiled to rogister his dogs, and had ho not been very busy harvesting, they would havo been all registered. He added that he had gone to the Registrar's office somo time ago to register, but finding him out, had not had time since to do so. Ho concluded by stating that the police had brought this case ogainst him simply because they had a down on him. Defendant was proceeding to call tho Registration Officer to give evidence, when the Bench told him it was not necessary, and fined him 10s for each dog, and 7s expenses. Police v. B. Mttthews. This was another dog case, but as the defendant proved the dog was not hiß, tho case was dismissed. ASSAULT. B. J. W. Chamberlain oharged William Whitehead with unlawfully assaulting and beating him, but as dofendant did not appear the case was adjourned. Constable Guorin proved to leaving the summons at defendant's house on Tuesday evening ; but did not personally servo defendant as he was away from home. CIVIL CASES. In the civil case, J. Brown v. Henori Kokoro, claim £6 3s, judgment wns given for plnintiff by default, with coats. O. O. Matthews v. C. Storey, claim £4. Mr Raymond for plaintiff, and Mr Tosswill for defendant. Plaintiff claimed tho amount for services rendered by his horse Betrayer ; the defence was an affirmative one, but defendant denied liability as plaintiff had not carried out the guarantee which ho (dofendant) said was given by him. O. O. Mathows proved the service and said he had never given Storey a guarantee j Buch a thing was never mentioned. * To Mr Tosswill he said the servico t<>ok place early m October, and it was sometime after this that his groom told him Storey wonted a guarantee. A. Mazengarb gave corroborative evidence ; said he never promised to give Storey a guarantee, but would speak to Matthews about it. •■B. Matthows, a well-known horse-owner, was then called, and said the usage among stud horse-ownera was that if a guarantee were required a Bpecial arrangement must be made before business was transacted. To Mr Toßswill he said his " cards " only had printed on them one price. 0. Storey, called by Mr Tosswill, Baid he asked the groom (Mazengarb) for a guarantee before tho second service took place, nnd said as the words "£i for season and £6 for guarantee" were on tho cards issued by Matthews, he thought there was no_ need for a special arrangement to be entered into. After counsel had addressed the Court, the Bench gavo judgment for full amount and costs, holding that a Bpecinl arrangement should have been made at or beforo the first service, and that tho words on the card went for nothing. Tbe Court then rose.