MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 254, 26 April 1912, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

BREACHES OF BOROUGH BY-LAWS. Mr. A. Crooko, S.M., presided over a sitting of the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when the only business was the iiearing of a number of cases for breaches of the borough, by-laws. Mr. .13. Tippins prosecuted, and itt all cases secured convictions. William Ilovvson. for cycling without lights, was fined as and costs. 7s. Bernard Martin was similarly dealt 'with" for driving a gig without lights. ■ William Tweedale pleaded guilty to driving without lights. In extenuation he pointed out that he left Waitara with A lamp, which broke on the way. The Magistrate stated that the Act provided for two lights, so that one would be available in case of mishap to the other. A conviction was recorded. ' Mrs. R. Colson, for whom her husband appeared, was charged with having ridden her bicycle on the Esplanade.' In extenuation her husband pleaded that this was her first offence, and that she did not know that cycling on the Esplanade was against the borough Bylaws. Pined 'ss and 7s costs. Mrs. Clara Wyllie, of Gill street, pleaded not guilty to a charge of having failed to register a dog. Inspector Tippins stated that lie had asked Mrs. Wyllie on several occasions for the fee, .the last occasion being March 30. Defendant's plea was that she bad no change on March 30, but on April 1 she offered the inspector the fee when he was passing, but he did not accept it. The inspector remarked that the fee was 10s instead of 6s. Fined 5s and 7s costs. Tim Magistrate informed defendant that this fine did not relieve her of the necessity for registering the dog. WAS IT A CATTLE DOG? Wm, Lowe, who was represented by Mr. Geo. Grey, pleaded not guilty to a similar charge. The crux of this case centred on whether the dog was a cattle dog or a sporting dog, the fee for the former being 2s fid and for the latter os, if paid before March 31, after which the fee was doubled. The inspector alleged that the dog, though of a cattle breed, was a good sporting one. In fact he had been- out with it himself, and it had been registered as such by defendant's brother on three or four occasions. He had asked defendant to register several times, and- on March 30 defendant offered to pay 2s 6d,- which witness declined, as he considered thdp *he dog was not used 1 for cattle. It would have been necessary for defendant to sign a declaration that the dog was used solely for that purpose. In reply to Mr. Grey, witness said that he did not ask defendant to sign the declaration. To the Magistrate: Defendant said that there was always time enough when asked to register the dog, and it was ; not till March 30 that he offered 2s fid. Mr. Grey said that defendant did not admit that he was liable for the dog, but he argued that it was a cattle collie, wliich was necessary in his daily vocation, as an employee of Messrs. Sole Bros, butchers. Prior to March 30 he was under no liability to pay. On March 30 he offered to pay, but the collector refused to accept the money, nor did he ask defendant to sign a declaration, of the necessity for which defendant was ignorant. The Magistrate asked if it was reasonaide to expecte the inspector to go round and collect and also carry declarations with him. Mr. Grey thought it was the custom. Defendant, corroborated Mr. G rev's statement, and. replying to Mr. Tippins, said that he worked cat lie two or three days a week with the dog. Sometimes ho took the dog out with him. when he gave his greyhounds a run on Sundavs. and naturally, if a hare was put up, the old dog chipped in. He doubted if Mr. Tippins had been out with the dog. The Magistrate, in giving judgment,

said that the.onus was on defendant to j have proved it was a cattle dog, and to ( say that he did not know a declaration / was necessary was no excuse. A fine I of 5a and 7s costs was imposed. .