LOCAL INTELLIGENCE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 4, Issue 222, 27 December 1860, Page 2

LOCAL INTELLIGENCE

.... Resident , Magistrate’s , Court.-— The. following Debt case was disposed ,of.. Dec.. 17, J. D. Jones ; v. F. I).. Bell, j£9, judgment bydefault , , ... ~ 1 ... /X'zsTßipT CouRT-.—Before.R. HARfr,;,Epgv, District Judge.— J'he @ueen chargpcbwit/i,.larcejiyab l |,§rilri. < lfei s •in or about the 25tlv . a mimber of articles of. jtewellery,.•?^e.^t<v. A ,lbe< value of about £25, from fche: ; sbore ; ,of-Messrs. S, Curtis and- Cp. .The prisoner/ guilty, ami. was...sentenced . to ~six,months;4in---prison menti \vitb hard labour. , -./ {K . : i The. Queen,v.. Johs.tyorftis[ J^e^en. i .j^2Pt > e prisoner was ..with- obtaining ;inp,Rey under; iklse pretences from bfr, Gr.ay,;;stoje.keeprir, 'il/anawatir. He... prpspnted jto Gray an order, purporting to .be . drawß .by .11 rigli, Ingram, hlacksmitb/Jangitikeb; s p. n Messrs. Turnbull, received goods.and cash ,to„ that .amount/from Mr. Cray. Mr. Gray-deponed; that.ther/prisoner had come to him in .June',last ;aud,presented to him. tile order,,Ayliichbe,-topic,,;sup-posing it to be correct, and ’ gave hiin goods he wanted,.andcfisb/for, the./balance of the Pfder; be found,afterwards. that,the-draft was not genuine. . Mr. ..Ingram bis, nariie was Archibald lugraip,tliatb% luvjl given no ‘order to .this biari,.yrlm:ha4b. e /M r been in hisjemploy., .‘.but'/ having seen, him,. aboqt bii., place, . arid .. owed him nothing; The .prisoner,./,mad'e,,a feeble attempt at defeu.diug himself,, jby" calling in question some of- the technicalities; in t|ieinclictmfii.it; W his. phje.ctions . were ; ruled bj Mr/kdart, 4nd ,lie / yyas Beptpriceii ; |o 9 months imprisonment with bard labour. ; The following civil cases were .tried. op.!Qjb 19th and 20th December. ; ..

Swainson v. Knox.—The defendant was sued for .£BO damages, for non-delivery of .a horse, Judgment confesssed. . , Ham mond v. G al pin—-Debt £45.. Jadgraent confessed. . . -,v. Vf- Mcßeth v. Gal pin—This was .an action brought; to . recover, the sum of £i,oo, which the plaintiff a farmer at Rangitikei claimed on account of, sheep, worried by a dog belonging tff. the .defendant, a neighbouring farmer. Mr. H. 8.,, Roberts in opening the case for the plaintiff : commented upon the difficulties .which; iff cases of. this description presented themselves to parties recovering the full amount of the. damage: sustained., The law required that the plaintiff should prove that the owiier of the.dog knew, it ,he. s vicious. He (Mr. R^.thought it would have been more jffst for the ffwner of .an animal wlueh .might do injury to, be, hound to know thoroughly the disposition of the dog before it .was allowed to be at large. . For lV; offP sheep: actually ssen to be destroyed there would generally, be. a dozen not seen.: /n the; present case 20 coiffd be proved,to .haye.lieenjkilted, but, 100 were missing,—From, tlie evidence, of ; the plaintiff’s sons it appeared, that on the 2fftli ffuiy last their attention was attracted by the. noise. of a dogi . they .ran .out. and ..found - defendant’s dog on a pig, they.saw the, tracks.of several sheep, and found, three lying .dead wery aear the pig. They subsequently found sheep in, different. stages, of .decomposition. The sheep were, worth .from 205.. to,3Qs. ouch. On jffustering ,his sheep afterward,. plaintiff fourfd about 100 missing. It was.likewjse ,pfaved that the dog had. been looshjfor ,spine days, and that % plaintiff had on a previous occasion recovered damages against the defendant for injury ■ pfv; a , similar nature ,dppe,l>y his dogs, one of which was* the dog now complained of.. T Mr.. Ross addressed the Court at some length on the part f of the defendant; ) Ho contended' that' there was no positive proof hat the dog had killed a single sheep. Tha

very-tough feed -.scanty; sWhifeh jVras , to aecrinnt hfuß-.(luPtoos; ;'especialIy.; ; as \Vitnes?es wriyldi/prove that some .of sthe. sheeps were weak* a»d ( unhealthy.; Be--sides/ there: were’-wild;- dogs in the neighbourhood,:! anti: tb.e.>.• probability ...was that the ssheepifounji had been /lulled by 'them.:: rsThe plaintiff;required- to prove..that the defendant’s .dog?> was: -inclined to worry:, sheep. But this ,;)»aii»-noi , been?;- done; He called witnesses .in prQofrj.of ,wbathe. -had- stat ed fully .replied. iJ; His Honor-said, that be was brought to the ;Ct>ncj usion ::tha t the defendant knew, bis dog -ityashicljned to Worry sheep, and that, lie had .kepti/him Uied riip. was /proof of this. The i|daintiff; however, jliad not searched .so thoroughly for the sheep .as.'lie ought to. done. •He,;r;Woi|ld , therefore give compensation for Jtjje:sheep; found;iiead.;. Judgment was accordsingly, given for- and: expences . which '; UmOUnted tO,:j£l7/25, ;