RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3756, 15 October 1886, Page 4

RESIDENT MA GISTRA TE'S COURT.

• I TEMUKA— Wbdkbbday, October 13tit. (Before J. 8. Beßwick, Esq., K.M.) ASSAULT. Frederick Oldflcld was charged by Julia Hope that he did unlawfully assault and beat her on Batarday, Octobe- V. Thero being a eroßsnctian, m which Oldiield charged Mrs Hope with unlawfully driving certain Bheep from land nob m her occupation contrary to tho Impounding Act, His Worship decided to hear the two case* tosether. Mr Tosawill appeared for Oldfield. Mrs Hope was unrepresented by counsel. After hearing the evidence of both parties, His Worship dismissed the cases, characterising them as trumpery ones. IIXEOAI DBIVINQ. Frederick Oldfield charged George Hobbs with unlawfully driving certain sheep from laml not m his occupation. Plaintiff's evidence m this case broko down, and tho case was dismissed with costs. I,ARCE»r. Daniel Bryant was charged, on remand, with the larceny of a waistcoat, the property of H. T. Clinch. Aeeuscd pleaded not guilty. Joseph Clinch and 11. Clinch gave evidence as to the waistcoat produced being one made on the promises of tho latter, and missed on or abont. September 6th. Constable Guerin deposed that he found the accused wearing the vest m question. Intorrogated concerning it, he was prevented from apeftkh.g by his father, who, said that his daughter, Polly, had found the veit. His Worship desired to see Bryant, Bear., and he wai produced m Court. He was, however, evidently suffering from the effects of liquor, »nd His "Worship decided to remand the ease for ft week, to give the acoused the benefit of his father's evidence. cnriL cabis. The following civil aasea wire dealt ■with :— Nauehton T. Harrison— Claim, £8 19s 7d. Mr Aspiu&ll for plaintiff. Judgment for ameunt claimed and costs. By consent defendant was ordered to pay 10s per month, m default fourteen days. Heap t. Kuaaell. Mr Aspinall for plaintiff; Mr Tosswill for the defence. This was a claim for the value of a dog which was killed by the alleged ill-treatment of the defendaat. J. J. Heap stated that on the sth October, Busnell, who is a letter carrier, camo into the bar of the Royal Hotel, of which plaintiff is manager, to deliver letters. He was followed by a dog. Plaintiffs dog was m the bar at the time, and growled at the other dog which was m the doorway. Defendant then kicked plaintiff's dog m the throat, and followed it up by giving it several kicks m the brisket and ribs. Plaintiff dragged his dog away and took it into a passage and it shortly afterwards died. Russell came to him subsequently and expressed his sorrow, and offered his own dog m exchange. Valued his dog at £2 10s, which amount he claimed. The dog wa» a quiet one. H. Drew gave corroborative evidence. (J. Levcns, veterinary surgeon, stated that aoverol of the dog'a ribs appeared to have been broken. There wore no symptoms of poisoning. Treatment as described would cause death, E. H. Brewer gave evidence as to the value of the dog. For the defence Mr Tosswill submitted that his client was justified m what he had done, as the dog had attacked him. It was a serious thing that a public officer should bo interfered with m the oxercise of his duties. The evidence of the defendant was briefly to the effoct that he had kicked the dog m self defence. The dog had often molested him and he had spoken to Heap on the subject. His Worship said that no doubt it was advisable that public officers should be protected m every way possible, but the defendant was to blame as he allowed his own dog to follow him. Ho had no doubt but that death had been caucod by defendant's treatment, and he would give judgment for plaintiff for amount cluimed and costs. W. Demuth r. W. McCann— Claim, £13. Mr Aspinall for plaintiff j Mr Tosswill for defence. This was * claim for tho value of certain (heep said to be killed by dog» belonging to defendant. After evidence was taken, judgment was given for 18s, with costs. The court then adjourned.