MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVII, Issue 93, 20 August 1915, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

TO-DAY S' SITTING. His Worship, \V. G. Kcnrick, Esq,, presided at the sitting of the Alagistrate’s Court at Stratford this morning. A fairly lengthy list, was gone through, including several defence cases, an assault case, and an action for the recovery .of a dog. DEFENCE CASES. Defence Department v. Brian Richmond. — Defendant was charged with failing to attend parades. He stated that his brothers had gone to the I rout and he was left to work the farm. Ho found it impossible to get in to parade.; He bad not applied lor an exemption.

Tiie Alagistrate pointed out that young lellows were apparently unwilling to apply for an exemption. He would feel, inclined to grant the c\t emotion to a man who was allowing two brothers to go to the front. He recommended the delendant to apply for exemption aiqf he would hear the matter. Defendant had attended camp. He would enter a conviction without line, defendant paying costs 7s. » Defence v. Janies Higginson.—A\ ithdrawn as the man had gone Home to enlist and was now in France. Defence v. E. L. Goodwin. —The charge was one of failing to attend annual eaflip. ; ' Q.AI’.S. Aleßea said that defendant was a member ol tbe general training section last year, and was posted to the 2nd ALIL, imt bad failed to notify the Department in any way of his change ol address. He had ignored all correspondence. ( Defendant was fined LI, costs 7 s - Default was fixed for 28 days’ military eustodv. ASSAULT CASE. j Frank Fulcher, for whom Air R. Spence appeared, was charged with assaulting one Charles Russell so as to cause him bodily barm.

’Plie Police asked that the charge be reduced to one of common assault.

Tiie Alagistrate stated that ho would have to hear tbe facts before lie could reduce the charge.

The Police pointed out that the facts of tbe ease were that in a local restaurant Russell, who was much the

worse for liquor, passed remarks about defendant’s size in sv joking manner. | On leaving the restaurant Russell made Further use ol the names, and j Fulcher, who took the thing up the wrong way, struck Russell, who, in j falling, sustained a seyere injury to Ids head. I

Air Spence, for the defendant, said that‘the'facts were very much as the police bad stated, but added that Russell had been rather men? pbjectionafile than tbe Police stated. A companion' of Fiddler’s warned Russell, telling him to get away. However, Russell did not get away, and added niore.grist to the mill by making further use ot objectionable names with reference to j Fulcher’s size. Fulcher then struck. Russell. Fulcher was a very respectable citizen, and the respected ‘ employee of a well-know n business firm. He had paid the. injured man’s ex- ( pensCjS; and also paid compensation lor t loss' of wages. He bad a wife and

family of eight children to keep'and j therefore, and in view of tbe eircum-' stances, be asked for clemency. j

In fining defendant 13 and ordering him to pay fils aptnesses expenses,| the Alagistrate said that he took into 1 consideration the circumstances of the case, but at the same time defendant] had no right to take the law into hi,si own bands. In eases like the present: a man’s course was .to avoid trouble, j The man struck' was a young man of. strong build, and bad to a great degree brought the trouble on himself. He imposed the fine as a warning to defendant. CHI AIN FA' FIRE. AA’. P. Kirkwood was fined 5s and costs 7s for allowing a chimney toj catch fire on premises in Broadway. AY HD’S DOG ? Cannon and Co. (Air R. Spence) v. John AVeir (Mr A. H. Johnstone). 1

Plaintiff’s claimed from defendant £2O or possessisn of a dog alleged to have been converted by the'defendant to Ids own use. Plaintiffs also claimed L‘s as damages sustained by tbe loss of the’ use of the dog.

Mr Spence stated that the defendant owned the dog in question, which was wandering about without a collar on on any marks of registration. Win. Harlow, Borough Inspector, seized the dogunder his powers given in the .Registration Act and sold it under Section 17 to Cannon and Co, There was no monetary consideration above the registration fee. The plaintiffs retained the dog, and have kept it for some three years and registered it every year. Defendant *sjaw the dog, but plaintiffs told him they had bought it from the ranger. Defendant said then that he would get another one. latter on defendant came .to tin* shop, took the dog, and drove away with it.

Evidence was given hy lands Henry Benhcrthv (Stratford), and William Barlow (Borough Inspector). Jli* A. FI. Johnstone, for the defence. said that the question was merely one ol title. Fie held that there was no sale which gave a title. Fir Weir was the rightful owner of the dog. 'I he only manner in which a title could he given was under Section l< ol the Act. which stated that the dog must either he sold or destroyed. He ((noted several authorities in which the judges held that unless there was something in the context to the contrary the word sale undoubtedly meant an exchange for money; A subsequent section of the Act pointed that money should pass, as it dealt with the disposal ol the proceeds of the sale. He submitted that the title was in the local authority, hut onily il Section 1< ol the Act was complied with. Harlow received no money for the dog. Barlow merely collected the registration fee and gave the dog away. Giving the dog away was not complying with the

Act, which stipulated a sale,. John Weir (defendant in the case) and John Henderson (luko), gave e'i deuce lor the defence, alter which tin Alagistrate reserved decision.