BULLDOG V. REVENUE OFFICER.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 256, 30 January 1874, Page 3

BULLDOG V. REVENUE OFFICER.

The following amusing case is reported in the Dunedin evening, paper : • What Constitutes an Obstruction ? —Joseph Gregory, of Elm Row,, being the holder of a bottle license, was charged with having, on the 22nd December last/unlawfully obstructed George Lumb, Revenue Officer, while searching his premises. -Mr. Branson for complain-, ant, Mr. Harris for defendant, Mr., Branson maintained that an obstruction', did not need to be in the shape of a door' or anything temporary. On this occa- 1 sion the obstruction was in the shape of .a ; foncious bulldog which defendant had letloosei—ait; animal calculated to materially', OD.strifc^a'revenue officer if he had -weak nerve?.' "Fortunately informant, was very' gallant, and notwithstanding-this noble in-, timidation he continvte_d his-.search.' 'The informant's authority had been looked on* with, contempt, but he- (counsel") thought that anyone who did'his duty under the Ordinance should be' protected, and not subjected to such intimidation and "resistance. The Act rendered anyone structing a Justice of the Peace or public officer, while in the execution of his public duty, liable to a penalty of not more than £2O. —George Lumb produced his: certificate of appointment as a revenue, officer. , Defendant is the holder of\a, v b'j)t-!> tie license. - On the.22nd Decemb'e'r|; ■ while going his rounds, he went' 'fq v °'de''-f fendant's store and told him he was going to inspect it. He said " All right," and went round v to the back and got a ferocious bulldog, -which had been chained up He brought it round, and holding it in a menacing .manner, said, ■•"•This Ms my protector," at the same time clapping and inciting'the dog. Witness went through the house,' and on getting -into a. passage about 2ft. 6in. wide the dog was at his heels, looking ferociously, and as though he were anxious jto Bite him, but restrained by .defendant —(Mr.' t Harris : Then;did .he speakSto you?) No; but he would' have liked to,have-clutched trie. Before told defendant lie would-let him' heairmor.e of this,, and ac- ?" • \

conlingly male a statement to Hie . Provini.ial Solicitor, and the matter was .afterwards brought up before the Executive : henc&HHe.} action.' Defendant did not oliject to through, hut said* he had once stdleh a cask' of beer, and had not yet settled for it.—By Mr. Harris : He had once taken a cask of ale. which action the law afterwards declared illegal, and he took the protection of the law to evade payment. He considered he was doing his duty when he did so. "Implicit obedience to my superiors*' was his motto.—Mr. Branson :' Now, tell me, do you think this ferocious monster would have prevented a weak-minded man woinothrough, the premises ? (Laughter.)-r-I should think it would. Well, was he' an ugly customer to come in contact with ? Yes. Though he did not frighten me hemight have' done so , to a dozen others. By Mr. Harris': .Defendant's' menacing and intimidating conduct was my .reason for bringing this aetion. Defendant said if I touched anything he would set,'the dog on me. Mr. Branson : Well, you thought \t prudent not to touch anything ? —Yes. I know that necessity is the mother of invention. Thenthis'atrocious animal, though not in the store, was on the premises ?—He was in the back yard. As the Licensing Statute is Government machinery, and lam a Government officer, I considered I had a perfect right-to take advantage of that statute and go' over the premises of any licensed liquor-seller, even though they extended over fifty acres. —(Laughter.) I acknowledge having gone into defendant's yard.—Mr. Harris had remarked in the last case that Mr. Lumb had only fulfilled his duty, in saying which he was paying him a compliment, but there had been cases brought before the Court in which he had exceeded it. In 1871 he forcibly entered the shops of several persons, and removed casks of ale in a cart.' Gregory, Jneing one of those so seized upon, brought Lumb before the Court, when it was found that he had acted illegally, and was adjudged to pay the value of them, but not beinor' worth anything he put himself through the Court, and the storekeepers lost their goods. Defendant's reason on the present occasion in carrying the dog was to prevent Lumb from repeating such a course.— Gregory then commenced to make a state-' ment similar to that of counsel, but Mr. Branson objected unless he were allowed to reply; but the Bench considered that there had been no obstruction, and dismissed the case. \