A DOG CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1976, 11 January 1907, Page 1

A DOG CASE.

"Yesterday morning at the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr Barton, S.M., Donald M.clvellar, tanner ol r l’atutalii, sued Jolm Herbert, sliopliord, of Wharokopae, to recover from liim a dog or its value, .CIO, and £3 for unlawful detention. Mr Blair appeared for plaintiff and Mr Stock for defendant. Plaintiff said tliat about two years ago ho gave a dog to defendant to break in. Defendant had told him that ho had taken a fancy to the dog and wanted to break it in. He (plaintiff) then handed the dog to him. Nothing was said as to payment for breaking in. Some time afterwards he went to defendant and asked him how the dog was getting on, and defendant said lie had sold it. It was then arranged that he (plaintiff) was to pay .£3 for breaking m tho dog, and that defendant WllllM rmf. +llr. ,le<r T i _ I V.

would get the dog returned to him. {subsequently defendant told Jiim lie could not got the dog back. Tlio animal was worth from £0 to £7. Ho ditl not at any time load dofoudant to suppose that ho was giving him the dog. Defendant did not give him a dog in exchange for it, but lie liacl the use of one of defendant’s dogs for a few hours. liy Mr Stock: He did not tell defendant that the dog he had given - him to break in was no good to him. TV 1 i*o \I /-»I»',,l [ n .(•« ~ , i i

Mrs Mclvellar was present when .. conversation between him ancl defendant took place. It was usual to pay for the breaking in of a dog. Ho aas not aware that there was a fixed scale of charges for breaking m sheep dogs. Ho had left defendant to break m the pup, and charge what he liked lor it. lie did not remember defendant offering him another dog in exchange. Defendant lent him a dog, but it went back the same day—it would not stay with him. He heard about seven months' ago that defendant had sold his dog. About three months afterwards he went to defendant and asked him to get the dog back James Leslie said that defendant had told him ho got the dog fr om Mclvellar to break in. fly Mr Stock: His conversation with Herbert took jilace about 18 months ago. Ho was certain that! Herbert used the words “break in.” Albert Charles Williams said that defendant had .told him .the dog belonged to Mr Mclvellar. • Mr Leggett had the dog now. Mr btock said the dog was given to defendant by plaintiff about two years ago. lor 18 months plaintiff made no claim to the dog, and he then came and offered Ld if defendant would get it back. The defendant was called, and stated plaintiff offered him the dog, tolling him that lie had no use for it. When ho saw the dog he said that it was too good lor him to have for nothing. Plaintiff replied, “Ton have been as good as a father to me, and 1 will make you a present of it.” He said nothing about giving him the dog to break in. Witness told plaintiff ho would give him an old dog for it a little later on. Plaintiff tlion said, “lou can keep the dog; it is no good to mo.” He (defendant) got the dog in May, 1904, and it was then eight months old. It took from twelve to eighteen months to break in a dog. Plaintiff came to him in May, 190 b, anil said he would like to have an old dog if lie had ono to spare. Ho replied, “Yes, there is one outside you can have.” Plaintiff took it, aiid said ho was satisfied with it. Nothing was said about the other dog. The dog plaintiff took returned the same day. A fortnight afterwards plaintiff came for it again, took it away,and it remained with him about throe weeks, when it returned. A week afterwards he (defendant) saw plaintiff, and asked him if he would take the dog, and he replied, “No, it is no good to me.” As to the other dog, plaintiff had never laid claim to it until after it was sold. Mclvellar then came to his house, and said, “How is that little dog of mine getting oh?” Witness said, “AYhat dog?” Mclvellar replied, “Clive.” Witness answered, “I have seen noth-

ing of it since it left here.” McIvollar then said, “If you will get it back I’d give you £3 for it.” Witness said, “You have no possible chance of getting it back for £3.” He (witness) had received £5 for the dog.

Mrs Herbert, wife of defendant, said slio heard plaintiff tell her husband that ho had had a young dog given him, that ho would.not bo able to do anything with it in the bush, and that he could have it. Her hus-

band said he would give him an old dog for it. Andrew Simmonds spoke of a conversation he had had with plaintiff, who said, “I have a dog at Herbert’s place. Herbert is going to drown him if you won’t have it.” Witness said, “That’s all right; if ho is going to drown him I will have him.”

Charles Francis Leggett deposed to buying “Clive” from Herbert, and giving him £5 for it. His Worship said that the evidence in the case was very contradictory; still, he believed the dog was not given to defendant. The claim was for £lO, as the value of the dog, but he thought that was excessive. The sum paid for it was nearer the value. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £o and costs, the sum to be reduced to 5s if tho dog was returned to plaintiff.