Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE HEAD OF THE BAY DOG CASE.

To the Editor

Sir, —Kindly allow me n small space in your columns for a few remarks relative to the expenses allowed to the various witnesses who attended at the R.M. Court in the late dog case between Robert Main and myself. In the first place, the boy Barwick, who is working for about 7s 6d, and was paid by his roaster for his time without any deduction, was allowed 14s for expenses ; the boy Close, another witness,,who is in my employ, and receives 6s per day, wasallowed 15s ; Thomas Shackel, another witness, also in my employ, "and receiving 7s. per day, was allowed 15a for expenses. Thomas Shackel informs me that when in Akaroa he was questioned by Main and his solicitor, and told them what little he knew, and as they found his evieence would be more against their case than for their benefit, they decided that they would not call him, and he was therefore never called in court, but still I had to pay this man 15s for expenses. Arthur Hussey, a schoolmaster, was allowed £1 2s, being Is more than is allowed a professional gentleman, as I notice the solicitor was only allowed a guinea. I fail to see why so much was allowed Mr Hussey, he receiving his salary fiom the Government, and I have noticed in all oases where the Clerk to tha Ro.ul Board has liad a summons case in court, he has not been allowed 1 his expenses, as it was stated that he was a Government man, and received his salary from the Government, Why, therefore, should a Government schoolmaster' be allowed his expenses when they are not allowed to the Clerk? Another witness, John Wallace, is allowed 17a and I should like to know why this is allowed. Perhaps they, .will .say 10s for a day's work and 7s travelling expenses. I find tho lad Brook*, a schoolboy, is allowed 7s ; and next, lain charged 11s for distress warrants ami 18-jfor poundage, costs of court £3 18s, and lastly, £8 damages for eliooting the.dog.when worrying my lambs, making a total or! £18 18s I had to pay, to say nothing about the loan oi my lambs.. This may ho law, but I fail to see. where" ju-tice coiner in.—Yours, etc, B. SHADBQLT. Head of the 3 .y, October 1?. . ,

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AMBPA18811025.2.12.2

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume VI, Issue 551, 25 October 1881, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
397

THE HEAD OF THE BAY DOG CASE. Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume VI, Issue 551, 25 October 1881, Page 2

THE HEAD OF THE BAY DOG CASE. Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume VI, Issue 551, 25 October 1881, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert