R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 90, 20 March 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

TUESDAY. (Before G. L. Sunderland and M. Murphy, J.P.) AILANACK V. ROBINSON. Claim, £l9 Is. Mr. Robinson appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Kenny for defendant. Judgment was given by consent for the amount, with £2 3s. costs, £5 to be paid down and £2 per month after. A. GILLICE V. D. D. M’FARLANE. No appearance of plaintiff. Mr. Kenny appeared for the defendant. Struck out with costs, £1 Is. In Brassey and Fraser v. Mangakahia, claim £lB Is. 6d., and costs £2 Is., and same v. R. Austin, £4 15s. 4d., solicitor’s fees, judgment was given for the amounts, with 15s. costs. Mr. Kenny appeared for the plaintiffs. NICHOLAS AND CO. PERA KOKA. Claim £l5 14s. Id. Mr. Kenny for plaintiffs. The debt was admitted, and judgment given for amount with costs, £2. W. ADAIR V. P. BREINGAN. Claim, 17s. Judgment for amount with costs. GISBORNE DISCOUNT COMPANY V. D. FRASER. Judgment summons for £l5 17s. Mr. Kenny appeared for plaintiff. Defendant said he had not the means to pay. Amount to be paid in three months, or one month’s imprisonment. WEDNESDAY. (Before W. Common, Esq., J. P.) The business of the Court consisted of three cases of breach of the Dog Registration Act, as follows:— ROURKE V. DOLEMAN. The Clerk informed the Court that this case had been settled. BOURKE V. QUIGLEY. The defendant took exception to the summons on account of his name not having been properly described. The Court having, with defendant’s permission, amended the summons, a plea of not guilty was entered. Mr. Bourke said that although Mr. Quigley had repeatedly told Mr. Faram that he would register the dog, he had failed to do so, and now positively refused to conform to the Act.

The Inspector, Mr. Faram, having given corroborative evidence, the defendant elected to be sworn, and stated that he had known the dog for six years as the property of Mr. Ponsford. The dog came under witness’ house and created quite a nuisance by attracting other dogs there, and despite all his (witness’) exertions, he could not drive it away. If he had power to do so, he would have destroyed it long ago. Ponsford had never spoken to him about the dog. The dog had sometimes been fed. If he were allowed he would destroy the dog at once. Mr. Bourke pointed out that, providing the dog was destroyed at once, still the offence complained of had been committed. The Bench said it had no option but to convict, and fined the defendant ss. and 7s. costs, and ordered the 10s. for the licence to be paid at once; in default of payment, distress or twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. The defendant left the box emphatically protesting against the decision, and vowing to at once terminate the cur’s existence by taking home a dose of strychnine. BOURKE V. READY. This case was a similar one to the last, as the defendant swore that the dog in quebtion did not belong to him, but persisted in following him about. After hearing the evidence pro. and con., the Bench dismissed the case.