DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1870, 20 February 1880, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Fbiday, Febeuaby 20. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.l His Honor sat in the District Court at 11 s.m.

CAMEBON (APPELLANT) V M'ILWBAITH (eebpondent). This was a case on appeal for the conviction of the appellant before two justices, at Malvern, on an information for stealing a dog, said to be the property of John Deins. His Honor gave judgment as follows : He said be had come to the conclusion that the oonviotion in this case could not be upheld. He thought the merits of the case were with the respondent. It is not binding that the £5 5b ordered to be paid should be over and above the value of the dog. However, as the merits of the case were with the respondent, he should make no order for making it bad, and he had not found any case in which an amendment of such a nature had been allowed. He also thought that the justices bad mistaken the meaning of the clause as to the amount of the penalty to he sustained, but after careful consideration of the arguments and a perusal of authorities cited be was of opinion that the use of the word “ feloniously ” in the conviction represented the dog as being Mellwraith’s. Therefore, if he had to decide on the merits, he should come to the conclusion that the dog was Mcllwraith’s, and therefore that the conviction seemed doubtful on the evidence of the appellant and respondent alone whether the dog was actually allocated to Mcllwraith or Cameron, but three wi’nesses had sworn positively to the appellant having costs. The appeal would be allowed, without costs. For appellant, Mr Harper. For respondent, Mr Joynt. The other cases on the calendar were adjourned till next sitting.