MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 3 December 1925, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3. (Before AY. .Meldruui, Esq., S.M.) A DEFENDED CASK. A. .1. Willmot. (Mr Eleoek) v. !. .1. Andrews (Mr Murdoch), claim L'L> tor loss ot a dog. Plaintiff gave evidence that he owned mi Irish setter. On Bth October it

was quite well, lie bad refused C'ln for it on several occasions. On the Stli October the dog appeared to lie injure I and was swollen about the stomach. It died that night. Showed the dead ,hig to Andrews and told him that was the result of a. kick. Andrews said he aid kicked the dog, but that would n.it cause its death. Witness said he vould expect Andrews to pay for it, iml Andrews replied never on his life. Mad the dog opened up on the lollowng Saturday morning, by the InsjK'ctor ,f Stock and in the presence ot Sor•oanl King. Found the dog extensively bruised. To Mr Murdoch —Andrews admitted ' hat lie had kicked the dog- M r .Conning said the dog was extensively raised ill the abdomen. Conning gave no informal ion that the injury to I lie liver was not caused by a WCk. I lie dojv was about S yours ol u;^r. To the Bench—Was offered Uls for the dog last Christmas. He was a thoroughly trained (log. Gave U i lor the (log as a three-vear-old.

.Maureen Taylor deposed site was a shop assistant, in a shop adjoining AH Andrews’ butcher simp. Saw Air Andrews crossing to his shop. Heard the Joe yelp and run out ol the shop and down the street. Didn’t know whether Andrews kicked it, or not. Heard Andrews say to the dog “ Get out ot this.” The dog yelped also about the same time.

To Mr .Murdoch—Could not say whether the yelp was just for fright, or from violence.

Dnlc-ie Willmot deposed she was the* Wife of-plaintiff. Had never known the* clog to steal. Had never had any complaints from those "in Andrew’s shop. The clog c-iiihc* home oil the morning he was injured about 9.13. The dog went tinder the house and did not come out till micl-njglit. She gave him a drink of milk and he went hack under the house. When it came home its side seemed swollen. The next day found the dog in the yard, dead, in the afternoon.

Mr Eleock said lie also wished to call Sergt. King, who was on leave, cm his return.

For the defence Mr Murdoch led evidence. Frederick John Andrews deposed he was a butcher in Rovell Street. He knew the dog in question. It was continually coming into the shop when no one was about and helping himself to meat. It was an old dog about ten years of age. Ho had never kicked the dog at any time. The dog always vclped when lie was caught in the shop. Had complained to Wi 11 mot about the* clog stealing the meat some two months Indore. M ilbnot called witness and he* went into the hack yard where 'Willmot took a sack off the* dead dog. Witness asked what caused its death and Willmot said witness had done it. that he had kicked it. Witness -aid he had not kicked it.. He had said he had often hunted the dog for stealing hut had not kicked it at any time. Willmot said he would have to pay for it and witness replied not he. To Mr Eleock—He had always given instructions not to throw scraps to dogs in the shop. The clog had been a nuisance for upwards of 12 months.

John Kenneth Aitken deposed he was a butcher’s assistant. Knew Willmot’s dog. Tt was a nuisance to them. It was always coming in and taking the scraps out and spreading them on the footpath. Had often hauled the dog out. It- would always yelp when chased. Charles Carpented deposed lie was a butcher’s assistant, and knew the dog. It was in Andrew*’ -hop every day after meat. Saw Andrews chase the dog out of the shop on the morning previous to its death. Andrews did not got near the dog. The dog ran round the block and humped against a bench and yelped and ran down the street. AFTER NOON SITTING. The Court resumed at 2 p.m. Joseph Conning, meat inspector, deposed that he examined the body of the clog of Mr Willmot’s. He found there were bruises extending along the flank to the hind leg. On opening the dog he. cut off portions of the entrails for examination. The liver had been ruptured. Did not find any evidence that death ’yp« fAfisof] by n kiel;, "Wlw®

the rupture bad occurred there wore no signs on the outside of the body about the ribs. It was an old dog, over eight years. Had seen dogs frightened when caught stealing. To have ruptured the liver with a kick, the ribs would have bad to he broken. He imagined the injured liver was an injury of long standing. Mr Willmot knew what witness was stating. He told him the result of the examination of the portions of the entrails made by the Government pathologist. Sergt. King was present just after witness had opened the dog. To Mr Eleoek: The bruise on the stem was a slight one. There were heavier bruises on the flank, consistent with a kick, but the largest was the of a half-crown. The rupture of the liver could have been caused by nil abscess caused by the dog swallowing a foreign substance.

Mr Eleoek asked for an adjournment for the evidence of Sergt. King, but his Worship said lie did not consider it was necessary.

Afr Murdoch raised the point that the dog bad not been proved to have been registered, or that he wore a collar. He held there was no evidence to prove Andrews had come into direct contact with the dog. Mr 'Eleoek said there was the fact of the dog yelping, and that from then on it had not appeared till the dog was found dead. There was no justification for kicking the dog to the extent that this dog had been kicked. His Worship said the only evidence brought to prove the dog had been kicked by defendant, was the plaintiff’s evidence that the defend,am said he had kick'd! the doe, which the defendant denied -living. The nuns was on i lie i la in l iff io prove lii.s case, and he had failed to do that. Judgment for the defendant with costs 12s. witnesses’ expenses .‘llls, counsel's fee £2 2s total £-1 10 s.