DISPUTE ABOUT A DOG

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 242, 18 February 1911, Page 4

DISPUTE ABOUT A DOG

ITS OWNERSHIP PROVED. The case in which Sydney Joseph Sutton, engineer, sued Thomas Bmnsgrove, bootmaker, for the return of a Coek«r Spaniel dog, valued at £lO, and which) was commenced last Tuesday, was conelm 1 ed ycsiiTlnv, before Mr.H. S. Fitzherbert. S.M.. ilr. Quillinm appeared for plaintiff, mid Mr. ¥, E. Wilson for defendant.

Aylmer Pi:iwarden and Benjamin, Tippins rave evidence for the plaintiff. For tl <• defence, evidence was given by the defendant and A. T. Moore, H. Jones,, ilrs. Bran-grove, Wm. Biunst»roie, and Edith llvansgiove. During the hearing the d.Ti was'brought into Coii't. When plaintiff cullei, its name. "Shot," it immediately went to him, i>nd jumped about as if delighted at .'.Being linn. If. did not respond so readily to die call of defendant's son.

The .Magistrate, in giving judgment* said in this case the onus luy on th« plaintiff to prove that the dog was hid. He said be recognised the dog easily, as it was long in the back and short in the legs. Anyone looking at this particular dog could see it was unusually so for a, cocker .spaniel. He had also called a, witness to whom he had lent the doft who also described its peculiarities. Both saw the dog in defendant's yard. For the defence the evidence of the expert had practically corroborated plaintiff's story as regards the peculiarities of thw dog. Defendant's behaviour appeared to him extraordinary. He said he had had the dog 18 months, and yet he did not consider the dog his until he had paid the registration fee on January 14 of this year. He stated to Mr. Tippins then that he did not know who the owner was; yet he now produced a receipt which stated that on January 10 he had purchased the dog from ' O'Kelly. If this were so, why did he not tell Sutton on January 2(1 that he had purchased it, _ instead of saying, "If you can prove it is yours, you can have it." Again, why did' not defendant produce O'Kelly ?

Mr. Wilson pointed out that, an explanation hnd been given. Defendant had said that O'Kelly had gone to Auckland. Of course, His Worship was entitled to draw his own inferences from this explanation—he need not believe it. His Worship: I don't believe it. I don't believe there was any man O'Kelly. I believe the whole i.s 'n madeup thing. It lias every appearance df it. I don't believe it a bit. Continuing, he stated he was satisfied the dog belonged to Sutton, hut was not satisfied that damages had been sustained hy its retention.

-Mr. Quilliam stated that plaint in" had been put to trouble and expense In the. adverse claim of ownership that' had been set up.

His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff, and made an order for the return of the dog. or its value, with costs £4.