DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1871, 21 February 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

CAMERON T. McILRATTH. The judgment in this case, delivered yesterday, having been accidentally mixed up in last night's issue, it is reprinted this afternoon : His Honor now gave judgment as follows: He said he had come to the conclusion that the conviction in this case could not be upheld. He thought the merits of the case were with the respondent. It seemed doubtful on the evidence of appellant and respondent alone whether the dog was actually allocated to McUwraith or Cameron, but three witnesses had sworn positively to the appellant having represented the dog as being Mcllwraith's. Therefore, if he had to decide on the merits, he should come to the conclusion that the dog was McUwraith's, and therefore that the conviction should be sustained, but after careful consideration ef the arguments and a perusal of the authorities cited, he was of opinion that the use of the word " feloniously " in the conviction made 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 had mistaken the meaning of the clause as to the amount of the penalty in not awarding that the £5 5s 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 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.