MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26465, 5 July 1951, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

WEDNESDAY (Before Mr F. F. Reid, S.M.) SUSPENDED SENTENCE A woman, whose name was ordered not to be published, pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a radio valued at £l9 18s. She was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within six months. BREACH OF PRICE CONTROL Berwick Furs. Ltd., for whom Mr E. B. E. Taylor appeared, pleaded guilty to a charge of offering a coat for sale at a price not in conformity with a price order and to a charge of offering goods for sale without the cost price in code attached. The defendant company was fined £5 on the first charge and convicted and ordered to pay costs on the second. Mr A. W. Brown, for the Director of Price Control, said that the company displayed coats at its Ashburton branch and the price marked on one was 15s 5d too much. The woman in sole charge of the branch did not have much experience in costing, and so the goods might not have been properly marked up. Mr Taylor said that no coat had been sold at a price in excess of the price order figure. The code list of cost prices was in the office, easily accessible to the inspectors, and it was only of significance to them.

CHARGE DISMISSED Ronald James Kerr, a horse trainer (Mr W. G. P. Cuningham), pleaded not guilty to a charge that, on April 23, by wantonly discharging a firearm at a terrier dog. the property of Irene May Bradbury, he caused it unnecessary suffering. After hearing evidence by both parties the Magistrate dismissed the charge. Mr „ A W. Brown, for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said that a small terrier, belonging to a next door neighbour, wandered on to Kerr s property. Some time ago Kerr’s fowls were disturbed by a dog belonging to Mrs Bradbury, and he was annoyed. All the damage was made good on that occasion. On April 23 Kerr shot the dog with a .22 rifle in the flank. His Wife went in and told Mrs Bradbury. The latter thought the dog was dead. A short time later, Mrs Kerr carried the dog into Mrs Bradbury. She had it taken to the animal clinic at Burwood where it was given veterinary treatment, but it died that evening. The dog had suffered pain and was moaning. Evidence on those lines was given by three witnesses. Mrs Bradbury, in reply to Mr Cuningham, said the dog was not registered this year. She had previously paid Kerr £4 4s for fowls, killed by a dog.

Mr Cuningham said that the shooting was not done wantonly but in defence of Kerr s property. Kerr was entitled to shoot the dog as it was not registered and was annoying his fowls. Dogs nad caused depredations among fowls in the neighbourhood, and the kennels kept by the Bradburys were a nuisance to Kerr and other neighbours. Kerr did not cause the dog unnecessary suffering because, within a brief period after the shooting, the dog had, been taken to Mrs Bradbury The defendant, his wife, and two other witnesses gave supporting evidence. ”he Magistrate said it was quite clear tnat the dog was worrying poultry, and m A, j circumstances the defendant was entitled to shoot it. The only question th e Court had to decide was whether the defendant caused the dog unnecessary suffering. The defendant did not fire wantonly at the dog. He had a legal right to shoot it. and he shot to kill. Mrs Kerr immediately notified the owner, and, when it was found the dog was not dead, it was taken within a short space of time to the owner. The defendant did all a man in the circumstances could reasonably be expected to do. The dog apparently was not suffering at that time, prooably because of shock, but when that wore off and it was suffering it was then in the hands of its lawful owner. CHILD NOT SENT TO SCHOOL Harry Mullis Duke was fined 10s for failing to send his child to school. Mr W. R. Lascelles appeared for the Canterbury Education Board, and Mr T. T. West for the defendant.