RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1411, 4 May 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON- To day. (Bjfore Mr H. C. S. Baddeley, R.M.) The following persons were each fined 10s and costs for having unregistered dogs in their possession:—John O’Brien, Catherine Nolan, Edward Bright, George Cox, Thomas Harrold, and Geo. Robbins William Brooker was fined 20s and costs for having two unregistered dogs in his possession.—lsaac Sargent was fined 40s and costs for four dogs.—Thos. Bradford, for whom Mr Onthbertson appeared, was fined 20s and costs for two dogs,—William Sutherland was fined 3Ds and costs for three dogs. An information against Samuel Bayle, for keeping three dogs, was dismissed. CATTLE ON STREETS. Charles Hmyihe and Joseph Ward were [ charged on the information of W. B. I Oompton, ranger to the Ashburton j B rough Council, with grazing certain cattfc on « public | treat, Mr Crisp k

appeard for the Council, and said that M the by law under which the information was laid had not been enforced before, ha would only ask for a nominal enalty. It was the Connell’* Intention to pat a stop to the practice, and in any future cases he would ask the Oourt to inflict the heariest fine allowed. The fine of 5i and costs in each case was inflicted. CBtJELTT TO A DOO. John Gilchrist was charged with ernelly illuslng a dog. The accused, for whom Mr CuthberUon appeared, pleaded not gnilty. The following evidence wee taken: —Henry Thompson said that about halfpast ten o’clock on the night of April 23 he saw the accused dragging a dog by a string and kicking it very hard In the riba* The accused continued to kick the dog for about ten minutes.—By Mr Cuthbertson— Witness could not swear the accused wat the man he saw kicking the dog; bat be thought so because of a peculiarity in Gilchrists walk—Subsequently in reply to the Bench the witness said he waa certain the man was Gilchrist

Morris Mayo, gardener, stated that about half-past ten o'clock on the night of April 23 he was In Borueett street, near Dr Boss’s, when he saw the accused Gilchrist kicking a sheep dog which ho was dragging by a string tied tightly round its neck. The dog was almost strangled by the strap, and had not power to stand up. Witness remonstrated with the accused on bis conduct, and the accused replied, “ Whit have you to do with it 1 ’ Witness saw .the accused continue kicking the dog for seven or eight minutes. Did not know how much longer he continued, for witness went in search of the police.— By Mr Outhbertson: Witness was positive the man he saw waa accused. The dog waa so injured that it was hardly able to cry {out. Edward Griffin also saw the accused kicking the dog in the vicinity of. Dr Ross’s house. The animal, which was being dragged by a string, waa not standing up It did not cry much, because it was too mnoh hurt to do so. The soenaed was kicking the dog as hard as he waa able ; quite hard enough, witness thought, to break the animal’s ribs. James Purchase stated that on the night in question be heard a sound like a (log choking, on coming out to the street ha saw a man dragging a dog in Bornett street over the railway line At frequent intervals the man k oked the dog violently. Alexander Burns gave evidence similar In effect to that given by previous witness. The evidence of Constable Beddek having been taken,Ur Cntbbertson opened the case for the defence by calling the accused.

John Gilchrist, drover, said ha had been driving cattle for twenty yean and ha 1 bad a great deal of experience with dogs. Last Good Friday night he went np the Alford Forest Road, and had a dog with him. ( The animal was produced in Court.) He was leading the dog, and as It was unwilling to come he would occasionally twitch the rope which caused the dog to howl He did not kick the dog, but occasionally “ hit it with the side of his foot.” The string wan tied to the dog's collar, and not in a slip knot. The dog was not hurt in any way. He bad another dog at home. It was not injured in any -way —ln reply to the Bench, Gi christ said that be had formerly owned a third dog, but that about a fortnight ago he sold it to a Christ hu*ch drover whose name he did not know. James Maben knew both of the aocosod’s dogs and had seen them lately, neither was suffering from any injuries. Gilchrist was not a cruel man with his dogs ; in fact he was too easy with them. This was the case for the defence. The Magistrate said that he considered the case had been amply proved. The accused it was evident was a man of a most heartless and brutal nature fie was proceeding to pass sentence when Sergeant Felton said he had Just re. ceived information that the dog which the accused was charged with illtreating had died from the effects of its injuries, and that the a’M>n<vl exhibited in Court was an entirely .i ff .rent one. He called Thomas Bradford, out this witnesss'a evidence was of a hearsay character, and could not accordingly be taken. Sergeant Felton applied for an adjourn* ment till 4 p.m. when he could produce another witness The magistrate said he would grant the adjournment, aa the case wsa one that required sifting to the bottom. Mr Outhbertson had no objection to the adjournment, which was granted. The Court resumed at 4 p m. and after taking further evidence sentenced the accused to 4 month’s imprisonment with hard labor. The Court then rose.