POSSESSION OF DOG.

Matamata Record, Volume II, Issue 113, 30 December 1918, Page 2

POSSESSION OF DOG.

Putaruru Parties Both Claim. The question as to the ownership of a blue-bearded cattle and sheep dog was heard before Mr Kenrick, S.M., at the Matamata Court on Friday. The dog was in the possession of J. W. or P. Dowd, farmers of\ Putaruru, but ownership was claimed by Trevor William Stringer, of Waotir. The latter wanted possession of the dog or £lO value and damages £6 lO.s. Mr C. L. McDiarmid appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr W. O. Hewitt for the defendant. Trevor William Stringer, of Waotu, identified the dog (produced) as one he purchased from N. C. Bennett in November last year. He bought him through the N.Z. Loan and Mercantile Agency Coy. for £lO. On May 7 the dog went with him to Putaruru and he missed him next morning, May 8, until July 30, when he saw him with Dowd. He got possession of the dog and left it in charge of W. Ibbotson, at Putaruru. Dowd, however, said the dog was his, and witness gave it up on the understanding that Bennett, from whom the dog was purchased, should endeavor to identify the dog. Npxt day Bennett said the dog belonged to witness, but Patrick Dowd refused to give him up. The dog was a good one on road and in paddocks, and to him was worth quite £lO. He had sustained much inconvenience through not having the dog, which he assessed very lightly at £5. He had paid Bennett 30s wages and expenses for his trip from Hamilton to identify the dog. He would much rather pfefer the dog to £lO. To Mr Hewitt: The dog had recognised witness, dnd had got into his car. Dowd had agreed to pay Bennett’s expenses if he said the dog was witness’s. N. C. Bennett, a drover, residing in Hamilton, identified the dog as one he had purchased from Mr Newton Dingle, of Hamilton, about 5J4 years ago. He owned him for about four years and then sold him to a Mr Radford when he was going to camp. Radford had lost the dog and witness had got him back from Mr Dingle. Ho sold him last year to plaintiff. He next saw the dog in August at Dowd’s place at Putaruru. He had no hesitation in saying the dog was the one he had owned. P. Dowd would not let Stringer have the dog. Harry Radford, of Hamilton, also identified the dog.

Mr Hewitt here submitted that it was a case of mistaken identity, Mr Dingle having bred two similar dogs. A. . Boyd, of Putaruru, called for defendant, said be won a dog at a raffle in Hamilton. It was ■donated by Mr Dingle. He later gave it to P. Dowd, and he was of opinion that the dog in court was the same. AVhen he had it the dog was unbroken, and he took it that it was still so. To Mr McDiarmid : He would not swear to the dog in court being the one he had given to Dowd, but he believed it was. P. Dowd corroborated the previous witness’s evidence. After getting the dog it strayed away, in April or June last, and was missing for about a month. A neighbor returned the dog. He had not been tied up and had remained at the farm ever since. James W. Dowd said the dog was registered by him after he recovered it. However, it belongs to his father. His father did practically all the work on the farm which required dog work. Ho admitted taking the dog from Putaruru with plaintiff’s consent and to agreeing to another man being brought to settle the identity of the dog. The man had identified the dog as Stringer’s. To Mr McDiarmid: AVitness would not answer why he did not keep his bargain to give the dog over to Stringer when it was identified as his as agreed upon. The dog was lost in April and recovered in May. Patrick Casey gave evidence as to the alleged ownership by P. Dowd. He denied he had ever stated to Stringer that the dog had been picked up on the road. The Magistrate said he ought to adjourn the case for the evidence of the breeder of the dog or dogs, Mr Dingle, of Hamilton. He would adjourn the case to be heard at Morrinsville on January 23rd.