MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2122, 22 February 1908, Page 4

MAGISTERIAL.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21. (Before \\v \Y. A. Barton, S.AI.) A IiLfiGED CR UELTY TO A .000. Robert Williams was charged with having tortured a dog by tying it behind the Gisborno-Alororo coach, causing it to ho dragged along tho road and killed. Mr Stock appeared for the inspector for the Society for the .Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (.Mr l\. Tholwall) and .Mr Lilair appeared for accused. John It. Itedstoue, livery stable keeper, said that on February 10th accused came to the stables to book a seal iu the coach for Tarowa. Accused was told he could take his dog iu the coach lor ss. Objected to that charge and offered 2s. Then said he would tie it behind the coach. Witness advised him not to do so, remarking that the dog might lie strangled. Saw the couch leave. The dog did not- seem to be running with the coach. At the time the roads were very dusty.—By Air Blair : Could have refused to have the dog tied to tho coach. Had often seen dogs tied behind vehicles. In tho present ease accused said lie intended to keep the dog tied to the coach until a few miles out of town, after which he expected it to follow him. Hugh J. Finn said lie was a passenger on the coach on the day in question. Saw the dog taken from the back of the coach and thrown oil to the road at Alakaraka. Charles Stewart, Alatawhoro, said lie was at Alakaraka on Februry 10th. Saw a coach arrive. -There was a dog tied to the coach. It was being dragged along. The dog was taken off, and was found to bo dead. —By Air Blair: Two or three miles would be too far to lead a dog on the date in question owing to the dust. Air Blair addressing the Court said that before a conviction could be recorded it must be proved to the satisfaction of tho Court that there was wilful intention to commit a cruel ac-. For the defence Robert. AA’illiams, defendant, said lie had had the dog for about lour months, having paid .£"10 tor it. Hid not hear Mr Hodstone say tlie dog should not be tied behind the coach as it might be strangled. Tho dog had often been tied behind a vehicle. For three weeks it was tied to a vehicle, while witness was carting metal. On the day in question the coach was going at an ordinary pace, which should not have distressed the dog. Looked every now and then to see how tho dog was getting on, and never saw anything to suggest that ho was not doing well. Saw tho dog about two minutes before it was found dead, and ho was going well then. Had intended to set him loose at Alakaraka. Near Alakaraka somebody on tho road drew witness’s attention to the dog. Stopped the coach, and unfastened the dog, which died soon afterwards. The coach ran mostly on the crown of the road. It was hardly likelv that the dog had been choked by the dust. Sheep dogs followed sheep in very thick dust. Had tied dogs to vehicles on dozens of occasions. Had never previously had a mishap. Ashton AVachsmaim said that he had often tied a dog to a vehicle. It was sometimes the only way to deal with new dogs. If a dog was properly tied no trouble would be anticipated. There was nothing •unreasonable in taking the dog tied to the coach for two miles out of town.—By Air Stock :. Should himself have tied the dog under the coach, despite the dusty road. AVouhl not pay os to have a dog taken to Alakaraka. Charles Cone, laborer, said he tied the dog behind the coach. Gavo him some slack, (about a yard), but not enough to allow him to get under the wheels. Tho dog was going weil when the coach left. Norman Alair said he had often tied dogs behind vehicles being driven at an ordinary trot. Had never had a mishan, though had had at first some trouble with a pup. Knew a case of a dog having died in a stockyard without apparent cause. The S.AI. said he felt sure t‘ ere was no wilful intention to cause pain. He felt sure, however, that the dusty nature of the road made it very unwise to tie the dog to the coach. He thought the Society for tho Prevention of Cruelty to Dumb Animals was quite right in bringing the case, but he would have to dismiss tho charge. No costs would be allowed. ALLEGED HOUSE-STEALING. The case Hohepa Kahuroa v. Hare Alatengi, a charge of theft of a norse in September 1902, was called on for the purpose of having evidence for the defence. Air Finn represented accused.

Eru AYliarekihi said that about fivo years ago he saw accused at Pakowhai. At the time accused had a chestnut horse. Bid not know if accused brought this horse from up the coast. Accused exchanged his horse for an iron-grey mare, unbranded, belonging to witness. It was running at Pukepapa, but not on Hohcpa’s land. It was about two miles from Pakowhai.’ Accused took the iron-grey mare to Tuparoa, but witness could not say what had become of it. Witness’s mare was the only one of the kind in the vicinity. Hohepa had a mare somewhat like witness’s, but not quite the same. Personally handed over the mare to accused." To Koro was present at the exchange. To Alati was not present. Rapata Te Koro, laborer, Pakowhai, gave evidence that he saw the exchange. Could not say how would tell the difference between Hopepa’s and Era’s mares. Accused and witness came together to Pakowhai from AVaiapu, and both stayed about two months. About two weeks after the. exchange saw accused leave for AVaiapu on Era’s mare. Had known accused for about six years. Owing to a witness (To Alati) not appearing a remand was granted till Monday next. z ' DRUNKENNESS. Two first-offenders were dealt with in the usual manner. PROHIBITION ORDER. A prohibition order was granted by consent.