MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIIL, Issue 275, 27 November 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[Before H. E. Cdktis and J. R. Dodson, Esqs., J.J.P.] Police Cases. Frank Gallagher, a seaman belonging to the Edwin Pox, was fined £1 and costs for using indecent language at the Port. Thomas Hughes was charged with cruelly beating a dog at Wakapuaka. Defendant, on being charged, admitted the offence. C. H. Martin stated that on Saturday evening he heard a dog howling at Mr Wragg's house. He looked up and saw defendant, who is Wragg's aon-ih-lstwj besiting a dog unmercifully with a stick. He went up with Mrs Gill, and found the dog lying on the ground. Hughes then took a spade and struck it with that, and then made a hole and put thedog, which was still living, into it, and was pioceeding to bury it. Witness then asked for aa axe, which was handed to him. and he killed the dog with it to put it out of its pain. The witness then proceeded to complain of having been uncivilly treated by the Inspector of Police when he came into town to lay the information. Inspector Kiely replied, and stated all the circumstances to the Bench, who considered his explanation to be perfectly satisfactory. Ann Gill stated that on Saturday evening she went up to Wragg's house with Martin", and saw Hughes strike his dog several times with a spade. The dog was lying on the ground not dead, and defendant dug a hole and put it in Martin then killed it with an axe to put it out of its pain. Defendant appeared to be almost out of his mind. Defendant said that his wife had constantly urged him to kill the dog, and ou Saturday when he went home somewhat under the influence of drink she was at him again about it, and he tried to kill it in what he had heard was an easy way by striking it at the back of the head with a stick. After the third blow, his wife, and father-in-law, and himself, all thought it was dead, aud he was dragging it along to bury it when Martin came up. He himself had no wish to get rid of the dog, and had no intention of inflicting unuecessary torture. The Chairman said that the defendant's statement was no excuse for, or palliation of, the brutal act of wanton cruelty to o 'a dumb animal of which he had been guilty. He was a man possessed of at least ordinary intelligence, and must have known that was not the way to kill a dog. He (the Chairman) and his brother Magistrate considered it to be one of the grossest cases of brutality they had ever heard of. It was very seldom that such offences came under the notice of the Court, so that they should award a lighter sentence than they would otherwise have done. It would be that he be imprisoned with hard labor for one week. Debt Cases. Freeman v. Scott.— Action to recover £5 for wages due. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £l 12s. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff. Hunter v. Sheppard.— Action to recover £3 13s 6d. Mr Bunny appeared for the plaintiff, for whom judgment was given with costs £1 Bs.