RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume II, Issue II, 25 February 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

; ♦ Thubsday, 24th Febbtjaby, 1881. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) M'Eenna t. Oxley. This was an information 'under tbe Dog Registration Act, 1880, for keeping a doir unregistered contrary to the statute. Denis M'Kenna — I am collector of dog tax. I know the defendant R. Oxley. I saw tbe dog in his possession two or three days ago. He has had tbe dog about ten months. The dog has not been registered under this or any other Act. Cross-examined by defendant— l have seen the do? about your premises in Reefton and Black's Point. You asked me to shoot the dog or to take it way. Albert Bennett, constable of police stationed at Reefton, said : I know the defendant ; I have seen two dogs in his possession about six months or mere. Tbe brown dog bit me in tbe hand six weeks ago; I have seen the dog follow MLr Oxley's cart about. Robert Oxley, sworn, stated that the dog is one of the stray dogs about the town for which he cannot be charged as owner. He owns one dog which is registered, but does not consider himself responsible in this case, as he had some time since requested Bennett to shoot tbe dog, when be found it about his premises. The Magistrate pointed out the stringency cf the Act, and explained its pro* visions, and would enly inflict a nominal fine of Is., as this was the first case. Bybnb v. Qttigley. Mr Jones appeared for complainant, and Mr Lynch for the accused. John Quigley was charged for assault* ing Edward Byrne, at the Low Level Tunnel, Black's Point. The following evidence was called : — Edward Byrne, sworn : I am a miner working in tbe tunnel at Black's Point. On the 10th this month I was assaulted by Quigley at tbe Low Level Tunnel at Black's Point. He came up and after assaulting Willis he tried to choke me, and hurt me so that I have suffered from the injury for about a week. Cross-examined by Mr Lynch : I did say to Michael Williams that Quigley did not settle up with me for some work I bad done for him. Richard Willis : lam a miner. On the 10th this month I saw Quigley chase Byrne up the tunnel, and getting hold of him and choking him against the timber. Cross-examined by Mr Lynch : I did not hear Byrne say anything about wages. I stood at tbe mouth of the tuns nel from where I saw the assault, which took place about 50 feet inside the tun% nel. The defendant admitted having shook the complainant for spreading false re

ports about him, but denied baring in» j'ired him in any way. Fined £1 and. costs, with professional cost £1 Is. Tkennery v. Dash. Claim for £5 for rent of a coltane lot to defendant by John M'Gaffin, as agent for the plaintiff. My Lynch for plaintiff. Mr Jones for defendant. !The defendant denied the liability, and pleaded hnvinsr ra ; d the amount John M'Gaffin, commission agent, residing in Reefton. I let the defendant a cottage at 7s per week belonging to plaintiff. The rent altogether amounted »o £5 12*. but I told defendant that I would let him off for £5. The defers dant handed me an order at one time on one Hewitt, but I did not accept it as payment, as Hewitt at that time was insolvent. lam surprised at the defence set up this morning, as defendant has on several occasions afterwards promised to pay the amount for rent, Cross«exßmined by Mr Jone9 : I told Dash on several occasions that the order I got from him was no good, hut that I would try to get the money if possible ; Dash knew also that I _hadj»ot got the it, when he said that he would pay mess soon as he could ; I have paid Mr Tren nery the amount now sued for, as he iD the first instance objected to me letting the cottage to Dash. G; C. Bowman : I know that Dash was a tenant of the plaintiff, and I have a letter from Dash expressing his regret at not just then being able to pay the amount due to Mr Trennery for rent, and promising to pay when able. The let* ter was received some time before Chrismas. Mr Jones quoted authorities to prove that the receiving of the order by Mr M'Gaffin should be heid as payment of the amount claimed, inasmuch as the order had not been returned within a reasonable time, to enable Dash to obtain payment of it himself,, nor had any notice of dishonor been given. He called — Robert Dash : I em a miner at Boatman's, and defendant in tbe present action. In June I gave Mr M'Gaffin the order on Hewitt. M'Gaffin told me that he would see Hewitt before giving an acknowledgement. Hewitt accepted the j^rder by endorsing it, Bnd I thought that it bad been paid. I got no notice of dishonor until October, when I received a letter from the office demanding pays ment for the rent. I then wrote a letter stating that sooner than have any law about it 1 would pay the amount. By Mr Lynch : I never told Mr Boyd that I wonld pay the amount, and never spoke to him about the matter. Hugh Bojd, clerk to Mr Bowman was called, and stated that he wrote to Dash demanding payment of the rent, and received an answer that- Dash would pay the amount ps soon as he got set" tied up with the contractors. The let* ter was written before Hewitt left the district, but I only inferred this from the contents of the letter. Mr Jones having addressed the Court for the defendant, Mr Lynch for the plaintiff submitted that the acceptance of the order by Mr M'Gaffin was no waiver of bis rlaim against Dash, as the latter was bound to see that the order was paidJudgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed and cost.Golden Treasure Company v. Muldoon, action brought for the recovery of calls. Judgment by default for the amount claimed with costs. Barman v. Wah Chow, claim for £6 17s, for goods supplied. Judgment confessed. Same r. Ah Young, for goods sup* plied. Judgment confessed for the amount claimed and costs. Mr Lynch for plaintiff. • Martin v. King, for professional services. Adjourned to next Ceurt day. Same v. Brown, claim for £9 9s, for professional services. Mr Jones, who appealed for the defendant raised a con*suit point that the defendant in the case being resident out" side the jurisdiction of the Court, the affidavit required to be taken in the case should have been made by the plaintiff personally, and not as in the present case by an agent. His Worship held the objection to be fatal, and dismissed the case with costs and professional fee. M'Geffin v. Sbarkey, claim for £15 3s, for board. Wo appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. Martin v. Auld, claim for £5 ss, for medical attendance. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. Settele v. Bo3ch, claim for £7 4s, for suit of clothes. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. M'Hugh v. M'Connaghy, an action on a joint promissory note for £10. Debt admitted. Judgment for the ajuount wifh costs. Byrne v Quigley, claim for £9 10s, for work and labor done. A set-off was filed by defendant for £9 17s, and after hearing the evidence which was very coDflicting, judgment

was gwan for defendant with costs end professional fee, Martin v Twee<lie ( claim for 10^ for professional services ; no nppearance of <kfendanf ; judyment for the amount with costs. Davies r Frampfon, an nc»ion to recover the sum of £3, lihl inee of an 1.0.1 T. Evi lence \ra« inken at some lenct'), qnd at (lie close judampnt was reserved. The Court then adjourned.