Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


ASH B ORTON J-To-Day. s i (Before Joseph Beswick, Esq., R.M ) i The Coldstream Dog-Killing Gas !. — I Thomas Eastwick was charged with un- £ lawfully killing a sheep jdog, the propsrty * of Alfred Nordstrom, of the value of LlO. * Mr O’Reilly appeared for the claim ant, ( and Mr Purnell for thi defendant. Mr ! O’Reilly remarked, in opening his <aae, - that it had previously been before the 1 Court in another form. The complai aant had laid an information against the dofen- 1 dant for larceny, and of course whei he (Mr O’Reilly) was retained he found the information had been wrongly laid, ond he was therefore obliged to withdraw it. The present information was laid under the 41st section of the Malicious Injury to Property Act.—Alfred said that on the *7th December he was at Coldstream, from whence he went to the Hinds. Had a black-a ad-white shee 5 dog with him, of the value of LlO. doing back met the defendant about two nnd a ■ half miles from the Hinds. The do'was ; running quietly along by complainant’s side at the time. The defendant em arged from a cottage, and asked if the dog was complainant’s, who said “Yes.” Defendant then said, “I have a good mi ad to take her and shoot l,er ” Comph inant said, “ How would y6u like me to shoot your dog?” Defendant replied, ‘(‘Just to show you I will call the dog;” and he did so. The dog then went up to the de- , fendant, who led it up to the cottage. II Complainant followed, and asked defen- : dant for the dog dozens of times. De- ; fendant took the dog to the hour.e and shut it up. Complainant afterwards went away, but returned subsequently to the station and ashed the defendant again for the dog. Eastwick refused to; give the dog, and refused to give tip his j name to the compla.nant. On aiother : occasion complainant visited the run, he saw defendant working some sheep with the dog, and with another dog. The following day complainant went out ;o the station accompanied by Constable I Neill. Asked again for the dog, and defendant said “ Here it is.” If; had been she t. Defendant alleged as a reason for his having shot the dog, that it was trespassing. He ! said nothing about the dog having worried or interfered in any way wi th the ’ sheep. The dog was a very valuable sheep . dog, and by one of Mr McLean’s imported dogs. It’s value was LlO. --Crossexamined by Mr Purnell : The bitch was on heat about a day or two before the visit I to the station. A shepherd on the Ooldstream run had told witness previously 1 that it would be dangerous to hiring a P bitch on heat amongst the sheep. Complainant was on the public road at the ' time n e was met by Eastwick, although ’ that public roai intersected the run. Mr ; Little, a cadet on the run, had never ’ warned complainant about coming on the 1 run. When Eastwick met complainant, he had warned him that he was not on * the road, and complainant ha.d said “ Well, if you can show me any other ' road, I will take it. ” There was a dog following complainant’s bitch at the time 5 he met defendant. The bitch was about 1 six months old. Had never told Mr Edwards, of the Hinds Railway Station, that ’ the dog was nine or ten months old. * Could not say how old the bitch was. Got ! her as a small pup. Went to the Sergeant of Police about the shooting 1 of the dog. The dog was un--1 registered. The Sergeant said that ' if witness liked he could take a mounted policeman out and seize the dog, 1 or could take civil action agains the doji fendant. He then laid an information for f larceny. Mr Purnell, for the defence, ’ pleaded justification. The dog was of a \ registerable age, and was unregistered, ’ and therefore, under the circumstances of * the case, the defendant was justified in ' killing the dog. The bitch was on heat ’ at the time of the complainant’s visit to I the run, and there were thousands of sheep about. The place was intersected ’ with ditches, and had the bitch and 1 the dogs got amongst the sheep they ’ might have been tumbled into the ditches ! and smothered by thousands. The com- | plainant had not been harshly treated, but had been particularly warned not to bring his bitch to the run. To substantiate such a charge as this, criminal intent must be shown, whereas there had been no malicious intent whatever. , Thos. Eastwick, the defendant, deposed ( that he had bean employed as a shepherd on the Coldstream run for the past eleven j years, and had been employed as a shepherd for twenty years. The complainant was trespassing on the run at the time of his visit, and was walking along a private j track. There were 4,000 sheep in one ■ paddock when he came up with his dogs, , The presence amongst sheep of a bitch on heat was very dangerous, for it attracted } other dogs, and might result in loss and injury to the sheep. When defendant ( met the complainant, one of the station r dogs had got loose, and was following the defendant and his dog. Defendant went up to the complainant and remonstrated ' with him on his conduct in bringing a dog like his on the run. Told complainant there was no road there, which he denied. 1 took the dog away from complainant, and ; afterwards shot it. Before shooting the

dog took Mr Dowding’s instructions to 1 that effect. The dog was shot the same evening. Was not working the dog amongst the sheep. Should say from the appearance of the dog that it was eleven or twelve months’ old. Had never known a bitch to get on heat at six months old. The dog was older than six months. Couid not say what the value of the dog was. —Cross-examined by Mr O’Reilly ; Saw complainant on the 20th on the run, but did not warn him about bringing the dog on the run. On the 21st took the dog away from the complainant. The bitch was on heat at the time it was taken from the complainant. —Kenneth Cameron said he was i shepherd employed on the Coldstream run. Had been at the station about four months, and had been shepherding for nearly 20 years. Remembered seeling the complainant on what is know as 4i Crow’s road.” This was on the 20th of the last month, the day before the dog was shot. Mot complainant with his bitch, and saw another dog amongst the fat sheep. Asked complainant if the dog was his. He said, “ No, it had followed him.” Witness remarked that the bitch was cin heat then, and complainant admitted that it was. Witness remonstrated with him on his folly in bringing the bitch in that condition to the run amongst so many sheep. There were 8,000 (sheep there. Complainant said he was jon the public road. Witness subsequently! reported the-matter to Mr Dowding, who; sent word by him to the complainant to keep the bitch tied up. The dog was from 9 i)o 12 months old in witness’ opinion. Its value would be from 20s to 30s he should say.—William Rich, shepherd at Coldstream, knew defendant took away a dog from the complainant. It was shot on the Wednesday, and it was not true that it was used to work the sheep with on the Thursday. The dog was about twelve months old. —C. H. Dowding, manager of the Coldstream station, deposed that he had heard that complainant’s bitch was running loose, and sent a message to him to keep it tied up. Eastwick said he had found a man Is dog, and that he had taken it and shut it up. Asked him whose dog it was. He :iaid he did not know ; none bf them knew Nordstrom’s name at the time. Eastwick said

he had found the dog on the freehold property three-quarters of a mile from the buildings. He said it was unregistered, and asked what he should do with it. It was a most dangerous thing for bitches on heat to 'be about on a run.— Cross -examined by Mr O’Reilly : People

found. It; was not a public road. Wit- a ness stopped everyone ho found going £ along the track. The shepherds had no in- a structions to stop trespassers, but witness 1 had stoppe d several persons. There was ’ nothing to indicate that the road was a 1 private one.—By Mr Purnell : There was i an excellent metalled public road, and ' there was no necessity for persons to trespass on the run at all.—T. Little, cadet at I Coldstream station, had met co m plains it on the run about the 12th of December Told him that he was trespassing, and showed him the right road. , He had tiie bitch which was afterwards shot with him.—This was the case. — His Worship summed up in a few words. He would indict a fine of 20s on the defendant, rnd assess the value of the dog at L 6. E'e declined to allow professional coats. Mr Purnell remarked that his client would certainly appeal against the decision. A Cooiatoo in Court.— Thos. Barber was charged with stealing a cockatoo, of the value of 355, the property of Mrs Harper, of the A 1 Boarding-house, Ta icred street. Mr Purnell appeared for the ;accused, who pleaded not guilty.—Mrs Harper deposed that she was the owner of the cookatoo in question. Missed the bird on Thursday morning last. It was very tan e. It had no chain but had a ring attached to its foot. Subsequently witness proceeded to Mr Lancaster’s shop, and hearing the bird scream asked ii she might go up and get it. This was on Saturday morning. The request to go upstairs was at once | granted,land witness recovered the bird.— Williami Hydes, a lad of 15, saw accused take the bird off Mr John Orr’s scales on Th ursday morning. He got off a cart he was driving and entered the shop.—Jas. Leman, living at Mrs Harper’s, said that he went to the shop on Thursday after- . noon and asked for Mrs Harper’s cockatoo, j He was told it was not there, and on ,1 asking for Barber he was told he was out.—John Hooper, employed at Lancaster’s, remembered the accused bringing ' the bird to the shop on Thursday. He i said he had found it. It was put upstairs in a spa re room. There was some French ; polish t|here, and this was overturned and I went over the bird, and dirtied its , feather*. Leman was a stranger to the

witness —His Worship said that he thoughl there was no case against the accused, who would be discharged. He ought, lowever, on finding the bird, to have instituted some enquiry as to its ownership. Witi drawn. —Mr Wilding asked leave to withdraw three informations laid by P. O’Sliannassy, of the Waterton Hotel, against H. Chudley, for abusive language, assault, and injury to property. His client did not wish to offer any evidence against Chudley. The cases were withdrawn accordingly. Fals|e Pretences. —Adam Stephenson was enlarged with obtaining L2 by false pretences from W. H. Puddicombe on the 14th of March last. Mr Wilding appeared i for the prosecution, and Mr 0’Beill!y for the defendant. Mr Wilding asked ‘leave to amend the information, and to have the date altered from the 14th to the 11th and 12th of March. Mr O’Reilly objected. A sworn information like this could not, he submitted, be amend ;d. He asked that the accused be discharged.—His Worship dismissed the case. —Mr O’Reilly then asked for costs. —His Worship declined to allow them. i CIVIL CASE. A. Harrison v. James Mutch. —Claim, L2 10 i fid. Mr Purnell for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs of Court. The Court then rose.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT, Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 531, 11 January 1882

Word Count

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 531, 11 January 1882