MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 251, 17 July 1920, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

ALLEGED CRUELTY S.P;C.A. PROSECUTION FAILS ; Mr; B, 'page, S.M.; . dealt .with , tho police case? at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. . , , • '•' -'- The Society- for tho Prevention- of -' Cruelty to animals, through its inspector ''(Captain Henry) proceeded against L.-, }■ • Parloe,\ a -'..postman',- charging him with cruelty'to a fox, terrier dog. .'Mr.'J. O'Donovan appeared for the society; and Mr. H. F. O'Lcary for the defendant. ■The complainant, Mrs. Schultz, a dressmaker, stated that 6ho resided at 16 Wallace Street. She had ton the owner of a foi terrier dog. On June 29, the.de- .' fendant came to the-house to deliver 'a ; ' letter, and witness, who -was at tho back ■ of the house, heard a thud against the iron fence. Immediately her dog •commenced to howl, and came round the side •■■ of the house howling'with pain. In; the -afternoon, when the defendant again tame to the house, witness asked him if •'.he had kicked the dog, and ho replied that he had, and would kick it again if 'it came at. him. The dog was in pain 'all day and all night, and notwithstanding that everything possible was done for ; it. it died in great-agony the next morning. It was five'•■ years old, and had '■ -never been known-to attack anyone, al- ' though between two hundred, and three "hundred people called at the house on 'business during .the .year. Tho .'••dog : 'barked at everyone," .but was. never 'known to attack anyone. • . . : The defence was that the dog was always vicious, towards the defendant, and ' ;•' that on the morning in question, whilst.de-fendantwasplacinga.leUerin.-the slit in . the front door, the dog first came round and Marked, ! then got behind him, and made an attemptv to attack ' him. , He -kickedfback' at the dog to keep it off. The incident was seen by a motorman on the Wallace Street car, who called out to Parsloe to "Look out"'for the ,-dog. Apparently the dog disliked the.postman, and always rushed at him. -• C. L. Steer, motorman, gave, corroborative evidence. ■.■'.■ ' The-Magistrate held that the evidence .''did not support the 'allegation ,'of the prosecution. It,tvas unfortunate that '•: the ' complainant'should have lost her. dog, but it seemed to him that the postman had acted reasonably in the circumstances. His Worship therefore dismissed the information. • .'■ /

', SECOND-HAND 'DEALER'S ... LICENSE. :..V.. Thomas Emeny, a 6econd-hand; dealer, for whom Mi). H. F. O'Lcary appeared, • was charged (1) with having ,on May 8 failed to record the salo, purchase, or exchange of goods; (2) with having on ' the same 'date purchased ; brasa a'ad cop- ' per from Kenneth Eowoll, a lad apparently under sixteen years of,,'age; anil (3) with having on May 11 bought 41b. ; of lead from Roy Haynes, a lad -under •sixteen .years of age. Accused pleaded piilty to the last charge, and not guilty to the other two charges. . . Kenneth Rowell, in his' evidence, appeared not to be sur6\tho.t he had eold ' anything to Emeny, and later denied ' that he haoV«old.Emeny anything on a \6aturday.. .When cross-examined, he

stated that he did sell goods to Emeny 1 on .the date mentioned in the charge. After hearing the evidence, the Magistrate dismissed the first information and • convicted the defendant on the other two . xharges. ; ,■ Hia Worship ordered, defend.'ant's license to he cancelled.

A ' PLUMBER'S PERQUISITES; . Mr. H. P. (?Leary appeared for Theodore Leopold Parker, who was charged with, having:on November 17, 1919, 6tolen lead and brass of ,*the .Value of lis.'Bd.," the property of, Thomas R. MTjaughlin; and with having on- April i last stolen an ingot of lead valued at 3s. 6d.; the property ,of MTJaughlin. : The defendant was in the' employ of McLaughlin,, a plumber, and the allegation was that when he.was sent to do a Job he collected the scraps of metal, Biich as lead and: brass., melted them'down, and sold them' lb.. ' The defendant admitted that he "collected scraps that would otherwise' have been wasted.". It was a common, practice. Some of the metals, indeed, most of 1 them, belonged to the owners of the houses, at which the work was : done.'

■ The Magistrate.held that the defendant had no. criminal intent, hut had followed a custom which was pretty general,, though ' it' could not bo justified. He dismissed the information, but ordered the defendant to pay costs, 20s.

'.■; INSOBEIETT, ' ; Arthur Sheriff, who' was convicted of drunkenness for the fifth time within six months, was fined £1. . For committing a breach, of his prohibition order he was, fined £1, in default seven days'.imprisonment. • '~.'