IDENTIFYING A DOG

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 239, 15 February 1911, Page 3

IDENTIFYING A DOG

DISCOVERY OF TITE COCKER SPANIEL '"Shot" was the name of a cockerspaniel, which had been lost for months and discovered in New Plvmouth. Part of the circumstances of this rather interesting ease was heard at the local court yesterday, when S. .J. Sutton sued Thomas Bransgrove, New Plymouth, for the recovery of the dog and damages for retention. Mr. Quilliam appeared for plaintiff and Mr. F. E. Wilson for defendant. Joseph Sutton, plaintiff, engineer to the Ridd Milking Machine Co., said he received tile dog mi September !), 1900, and caned him "'Shot.!' lie lent the dog to Pcnwarden at Omata, who had it four days. He missed the dog. about May 4,. 1910, and made enquiries from the man coach people and. elsewhere, but did iM. receive any information of it. On the day of the Governor'' visit Mrs. Sutton and he recognised t'lio dog at the Melbourne Clothing Company's corner. .It wap with two Indies, and he followejl ,them and claimed the dog. The replv win that she (Mrt Bransgrove) liad had 'he do? for IS months. Bransgrove said if witness took the dog he would prosecute him. as he had purchased it from a hawker of hair restorer and had paid" 10s for the dog's registration. He refused to .show iiim the receipt for for the dog, and asked him to prove it was' witness's. "Yes," lie replied. "Have 'you had the dog'in water?" After some hesitation Bransgrove said he had, and witness said: "Ife can't swim." ißranssrove replied: "Yes, tliat is right." Witness refused to pay the 30s and take the dog on Bransgrove giving him the opportunity. The dog was valued by witness at £lO. The dog was ,on Bransgrove's property, and lie swore the dog was his: _ To Mr. Wilson: He told Bransgrove it was registered with the Kairaiiga County Council as it was shipped to him with that Council's 190!) collar on, but he found out it was- not registered. He wrote down the particulars, name of the Council and breeder, etc., to convince Lransgrove that lie was the owner of the dog, and told'him he cnirid write to verify them. But. on- findiii" out so much untruth had been told about the' dog, lie demanded immediate possession or it. Witness admitted bavin" received a letter from Bransgrove stating that ho had written as agreed and obtained particulars, and asking him to V 0 along and make arrangements as soon a» possible as the dog was a nuisance to the neighbors. Witness had wver seen a dog of that type with such characteristies either in Auckland or New Plymouth. He had given Mr. Tipping f'' 01 ' T , tO S u( ; the dog from Mr. Bransgiove. Tie could identify the dog on aefine'lnir 1 IW,!? l) ° (,^>'culil <r build, inc hau, being very ..short in thfc leg, arid hauiig a peculiar action in the liin'dr|iiarters It had a small and prcttv He < n l" ''-"'i "°f ailvertis,i f " r the do?. He could pick-the',jog out of a ll the corker-spaniels in New Plymouth; if'he ■otildn t he would give the dog to Mr Bransgrove and pay costs. Cpon satisfactory proof boin-' forthcoming, said Mr. Wilson, the dog Id be returned to Mr. Sutton. g d