THE DOG CARE AGAIN.

Patea Mail, Volume I, Issue 56, 23 October 1875, Page 2

THE DOG CARE AGAIN.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE I'ATEA M .AA Sir—ln your last issue a rather haz - Ut'-.-r appeared over a very appropriate sigr.-' tire of“ Bow Wow Wow," having reierci; the “ peculiar dog case." I think it liable to point out to “ Bow Wow Wow ' ‘ in his quotation he has left out the important part of the clause rei'cirin A occupiers of forty acres. I have not a c - of the 0? dinance, but will qnotn from j.vraory, adding in italics the part ignored - “ Bow Wow Wow.” “ The legal occupier not less than foTfy acres shall ijc entitle., to keep one sheep or cattle dug otherwise than a. retriever, setter; point •'■/■ or other sporting dog,, on payment of one .-hilPrtg per annum." I lay no claim-to “an extraordinary amount of intelligence and discernment but I must still beg to differ frun) " Bo w Wou Wow.” The intention-of the Ordinance appears to be that the holder of nor- less ihur: forty acres may keep-" any kind ” of ting for sheep or cattle purposes, " otherwise " a sporting-dog. on payment or one ?InT ; Does •' Bow Wow Wow ” remember ;hc • _• diet of the Court, "The defendant will to pay five shillings this year, next, yt can return it as a cattle dog. an course pay only one shilling.’' But - Because he is legally liable. If so, not next year? or became he did till up registration form correctly ; technical point).. This I imagine v peculiarity alluded to by y-mr roper! . ■ \vho--“Bow Wow Wow states” had taker r- ( , sidcrablc pains to explain the meaning e the dog nuisance ordinance, also describing accurately what was urged by plaintiff a)id defendant, and yet accuses him of woo gathering. The remainder of vhe letter really too much for me, I give it up, Ho;or that if Bow Wow Wow” wr-hes any ■ peculiarities pointed- out, he will ■ affc Cor r in language that one can understand, an leave out the- bunkum about ” sacred ri -.hf. impertinence, &c,' ! Yours, &c., H. E. DKAEK. Carlyle, October 21.