AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume VI, Issue 548, 14 October 1881, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., 11 M,

Tuesday, October 11, 1881

CIVIL CASES. Main v. Shadbolt.

I The Bench gave judgment in the above cape. In doing so the Magistrate said, " I do not think that the dog when it was killed, was running at large, under tin definition laid down by the Registration of Dogs Act 1883. The dog bad been used to drive sheep out of Lew's piddook on previous occasions, and though be was in Siadbolt's paddock, and out of sight of Barwick at the moment he was shot, yet I consider he was in hand, performing tho duty on which he was sent. I was not pleased at the way in which the two lads gave their ovideuco for the defence, and Ido not think the dog was worrying a lamb at the time it was shot, as no proof whatever was brought. As to the lamb skin produced in Court, and said to he tbat of a bunl) three weeks old. all I can say is that from the appearance of the skin, it was that of a lamb that had been butchered in tin; ordinary way. and that if it was the skin of a lamb only three weeks old, that it reflected the greatest credit on Mr Shadbolt's flock. lam afraiU that the dog was killed, not because it was injuring the sheep, but because there was malice against its o.vner, and that the whole transaction was one o. revenge, and I judge this from what witnesses deposed Bryant said, and I therefore give judgment for plaintiff for £8 10s damages, costs and solicitor's fee 21s. Mr Nalder on behalf of Mr Shadbolt, asked if the Bunch would grant an appeal. The Bench said certainly, but they did not see what legal point was involved. Meech v. Orchard. Claim Pis 61 Judgment for amount claimed and costs. This concluded the business.