RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2525, 6 July 1893, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka —Tuesday, July 4, 1893. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] UNREGISTERED DOGS. Alfred Nicholas was charged with having two unregistered dogs on the 30 th June. Separate informations. ,Mr Salmond appeared for the informant, Mr E. Pilbrow, the registrar of dogß for the Temuka Town Board. He understood both of the dogs had been registered with the Geraldine County Council, and a fee of 2s 6d each paid. The question for His Worship's decision was whether the dogs should have been registered in the county or in the town district. If in the latter, he claimed that the fee should be 10s, instead of 2s 6d. Edw. Piibrow, registrar of dogs for the Temuka Town Board, gave evidence. The defendant was a journeyman butcher, employed fl-nd resident in Temuka. Knew the two dogs in question. Had seem them occasionally at the shop, and at defendant's house, and he believed they were occasionally at the slaughterhouse. \By defendant: Had seen one dog at defendant's house. Was not sure he had ever registered " Laddie " before. Eugene Egan, registrar of dogs for the 'Geraldine County Council, Temuka district, registered two dogs for defendant. Told him if he was keeping them in the town he was liable to have to register them in the town district. He stated they would be kept at the slaughter yards. Did hot know if they were kept there. By defendant: Had seen a dog tied up at the slaughter yards. Alfred Nicholas, examined by His Worship, said he was the owner of one dog. It was kept at the slaugter yards for yarding sheep. Rarely brought it to town, except to use it for driving sheep from the saleyards. The other dog registered was owned by McCallum, of Epworth. Was registered in his name. They were kept solely for driving sheep. By Mr Salmond : The young dog was kept at Epworth. It had been there seven months. It originally belonged to Whitehead, and witness sold it to McCallum in the beginning of May. McCallum paid a pound for it. By His Worship : Resided in the town district. The dogs were registered as Bheep dogs. The young one would only just be coming into work. His Worship said that under the Act it appeared that any shepherd or drover not being resident ia a town district or borough was entitled to register at 2s 6d. Defendant did not appear to be entitled to this privilege, as, even if. a drover, he resided in the town district, and his principal place of business was there." He was of opinion that the dog was not registered. , , Mr Salmond submitted that defendant was in the same position with regard to the other dog. His Worship said that as the defendant might have been misled by the section of the Act he should only impose a nominal penalty of 2s 6d, without costs. Defendant urged that one dog was sold prior to the information being laid, and, Mr Salmond declining to press the charge in respect of the second dog, it was dismissed. Frederick Morris was charged with having an unregisteted dog, and pleaded "Not guilty." E. Pilbrow, registrar of dogs, gave evidence) thac defendant was a shepherd. When out of employ he resided with his father in the town district. The dog was registered with the county council. Frederiok, Morris, shepherd, said that, when he was out of employ he lived with'his father and mother in Temuka. When the dog was registered he was living at Seadown, and had been for three months. Was not using the dog as a sheep dog at the time. Used it for driving stock whenever he got the chance. Was formerly regularly employed as a shepherd. His Worship thought defendant was not entitled to be called a drover. It did not seem that he had to go into the matter. The registrar of the county council satisfied himself about the registration, and ii; did not appeal? to him that defendant, with no fixed place of abode, was compelled to register in the town district. The case would be dismissed.

George McMillan was also charged with having three unregistered dogs. Mr Salmond said this was a similar case. He was instructed that the defendant was a stock-dealer and drover, but he believed he himself claimed to be a farmer. He was resident in the town, and had lately taken some land, upon which he ran stock.

E. Pilbrow gave evidence that he knew defendant as connected with stock. He believed he had land outside the town Did not know how long he had occupied the land.

By His Worship : Had seen the dogs in the daytime. Did not know where they were kept at night, Eugene Egan, registrar of dogs for the Geraldine County Council: Knew defendant as an attendant at sales and that he had a farm about six miles out. There might be some three or four hundred acres. Previous to being a farmer, he was a sfcock-dealer.

George McMillan, farmer : Am leasing a 400- acre farm five miles from Temuka. The dogs are kept on the farm generally. I live in Temuka, and when the dogs come to town they are tied up. To Mr Salmond : Had the farm over a year. Had 150 acres of wheat in it last year; had stock on it also. Was, a staokdealer and driver a yea* a^jo, Hjs Wqrship there was nothing in tfep case, and he would dismiss it. CIVIL CASES. C. Story v. J. D. Webber—Claw £ll7s 6d. A letter from the defendant was read. to the effect that the debt was contracted while the defendant was in the employ of the Colonial Mutual Inpuranco Company, and that plaintiff had promised to apply to the company for the money. Th© plaintiff said the insurance comWQUid, not pay.

Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. P. Wareing v. G. Blkis—Claim £3. Mr Salmond appeared for the plaintiff, and there was no appearance of the defendant. The amount was claimed as damages for trespass on the land of the plaintiff at Milford. The defendant was frequently warned off, but treated such warnings with contempt. J P. Wareing gave evidence to the effect that he saw defendant and another crossing his land; called out to him, but he ran away. It was impossible to say what damage was done. It was the annoyance of the people passing there more than the damage. There was actual actnal damage. Thomas Oliver gave evidence to the effect that he was working for Mr Wareing, and had warned the defendant, but he took no notice of it. He saw men frequently passing there. His Worship said as no harm had been done he could not Bee how he could assess damage. No damages had been mentioned, and in the absence of any evidence showing damages he could not give any. Mr Salmond said the people were passing there for purposes which the plaintiff would not encourage, and, on thi3 being explaiied, His Worship decided to inflict a fine of ss, and costs, as a warning to others. j The Court then rose. j