Hide Article Text (OCR)
^Numerous delinquent taxpayers were with and fined.dealtRCOURT AT LINSTEAD.(From our Correspondent.)YJnstead, Jan. 8.—Yesterday was return day in the Linstead Court; His Honour Mr. J. V. Leach, Resident Magistrate. presided, and among the eases disposed of were the following;—In the case of Charles Dixon vs. Samuel Lee, the plaintiff (bv his next friend. Samuel Dixon) claimed from the defendant the sum of ten pounds as damages for injuries received through being bitten bv the defendant’s dog.Mr. H. W. W. Dayes of Messrs. Daves and Daves represented the plaintiff, whilethe defendant was represented by Mr.L. V. D. Bamuel of Messrs. Samuel and Samuel.The plaintiff ^and his witnesses gave evidence which went to show that on tho 22nd of November last, while the laintlff was on hlr way home at about alf past eight o’clock at night, he was attacked on the WIUiamsfieM road and bitten bv the defendant’s dog, in consequence of w’hich he had to aeek medical aid from Dr. J. H. Peck at Spanish Town.He suffered much pain and was prevent-, Th ed from going out to 1)1* work for sev-1 1 m era! days.The case for the defence was that the dog that bit the plaintiff was not belonging to the defendant. For at the time when the injury was done, the defendant's dog was securely locked up in hla (defendant's) shop.Ills Honour was satisfied that the defendant was the owner of the dog that bit the plaintiff; but he thought the claim was grossly exaggerated, as also the nature of the injury which was slight. He assessed the damayes at twenty-six shillings. for which amount Judgment mas given in favour of the plaintiff, and costa and solicitor’s costa, taxed at £3 176. -In the case of R. A. March vs. D. I . Bingham in which the plaintiff claimed from the defendant the sum of £3,12/ for goods sold and delivered. Mr. L. V. D. Samuel represented the plaintiff, while the defendant who did not appear wasunrepresented. Judgment was given inVfavour of the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs and solicitor’s costs.The same plaintiff also sued Cleveland Grant under section 227 for £13 1/f being moneys advanced for the purchase of produce. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, and costs and solicitor’* costs, taxed at £2 16/. The defendant was ordered to pay €1 per month, failing which he must be imprisoned for fourteen days.Arthur Harrison was also sued by the same plaintiff for £10 7/7 being moneys advanced for the purchase of produce. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, and costs and solicitor's costs, taxed at £2 10/3.In the case of the Linstead People’s Co-operative Loan Bank Ltd., vs. H. J. Cook man ar.d Arthur Grant, the plaintiffs claimed the sum of £22 6/ being moneys due. Mr. L. V. D. Samuel represented the plaintiff, the defendant, Cookman, didnot appear. Judgment was given for theiplaintiffs for the amouift claimed, and j costa and solicitor's costs. 1Mr. L. V. D. Samuel also represented R A. March who claimed from S. A. Wood the sum of £30 5/6 under section 227 for shortage of stock.Mr. M. M. Baquie represented the defendant.Judgment was given for the plaintifffor the amount claimed, and costs and solicitor’s coats, taxed at £5 7/6.After some discussion the defendant was ordered to pay £5 per month, or go to prison for thirty days, the first payment to be made on the 7th of Februarynav t
Newspaper Details
Kingston Daily Gleaner
Kingston, Kingston, JM
Fri, Jan 16, 1920
Page 11
Full Page
Clipped by
James F.
JM 02 Oct 2022
Other Publications Near Kingston, Kingston
Kingston Gleaner
Kingston Weekly Gleaner
Kingston Outlook Magazine
Colonial Standard
De Cordovas Advertising Sheet
