RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 340, 2 September 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, September Ist. (Before J. Giles Esq., R. M) PERJURY.. . George Blair appeared on remand charged with this offence. On the previous day the Magistrate had expressed his doubt as to the possibility of proceeding with the case which should have been commenced at Nelson. He now gave his opinion Uuvt he did not think a prima facie case had been at all male out, and d ischarged. the ace used. AT; LOWING A FEROCIOUS DOG TO BEAT LARGE.

Alexander Ross was charged with allowing a savage dog to he at large. Constable Neville proved that he went down to Ross's house, and had a dog pointed out to him there, which had just before worried a child. James Dempsey said that he saw two or three children close up to a dog, and apparently teasing it. The dog turned round and made a snap at it, and bit it. The mother came up directly and picked up the child. In reply to defendant, witness said he did not know to whom the dog belongedo.

Mrs. D'JLoree proved that she saw Mrs. Tottenham come up with herself and child all covered with blood, after the dog had bitten the latter. Witness did not know whose dog it was, but it had been at Connor's house. Mrs. Tottenham said that on Wednesday last she saw the dog hite the child in the face and ran to its assistance, and drove the dog away. This happened about six or seven doors from her house. She knew the dog. In reply to the Bench, witness said Mrs. Such was taking care of the child, but was not with it at the time. The child was walking about by itself. By defendant:—She always thought the dog belonged to Connor. The children there were in the habit of playing with the dogs ; tying big stringsround their necks &c. Defendant said the dog belonged to John Connor, who left his house'in his, defendant's, charge. He was not present when the accident occurred and had nothing whatever to do with it. The Magistrate said there was a clause injthe Constabulary Ordinance, which rendered liable any one who suifered a savage dog to be at large, whether owner or not, In this case however, there was- no evidence to show that the defendant knew the dog to be a savage animal, and in addition, it was shown that the children had been teasing it in such a manner as to provoke even a good tempered dog. The mother of the child was not blameless in allowing the child to run at large in the streets. It showed clearly that the operation of the Dog Act was required in Westport, • but he did not think under all the circumstances' he would be justified in convicting the defendant on this charge. It was how r ever, open for the mother to seek damages by a civil remedy. The case would be dismissed. CIVIL CASES. Thompson and M'Conochie **v Mahone.—To recover £ll 2s Bd. goods sold. Verdict for the amount. Stitt v. Williams—Mr. Tyler for the defendant, said that the items were all admitted, but on the lGth day of April a declaration of insolvency was filed and only what had been incurred since that date could be recovered, excepting by proving in the usual course in bankruptcy. Verdict for £8 18s Gd. Brown and Lissner v. Crowe:— Verdict by consent for the amount, what tqat was, did not transpire. Braithwaite v. Mahone—Struck out in consequence of the non-appearance of the plaintiff. Brown v. Cooper—Verdict by default for £l3 6s, goods sold and delivered. Ehrenfried Brothers v. Lemo—Defendant admitted the debt, but said that the plaintiffs had never asked him for it like a gentleman, but had abused him. He hoped therefore that no costs would be allowed, for the action was merely brought through spite. Defendant gave a long history of thetransaction which, however, did not alter the fact of the debt being due,

and a verdict was given for the amount with costs. As in a previous case the sum sued for was not mentioned.