REGISTRATION OF DOGS.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 48, 1 October 1887, Page 2

REGISTRATION OF DOGS.

The case decided against the County Council on Thursday has an important bearing to the settlers. The Maoris have a clinging tenderness for their dogs, and are not very particular as to their being of a refined breed, provided that they are dogs. It follows that these dogs, being generally of a wild nature and accustomed to hunt for most of their food, turn wild, and the sheepfarmers know to their cost what a nuisance wild dogs are. With their love for their pets, the Maoris have also a great antipathy to the payment of the tax, and of course the Registrar has every obstacle placed in his way. To do the work properly he must submit to all sorts of annoyance and even danger. In the past the complaint has generally been as to the laxness of the collectors, and their over zealousncss is not often questioned. In this case, however, the Registrar appears to have been greatly at fault. The evidence of the Maoris was very conclusive that Dover shot Komaru’s dog without taking notice whether the collar was a good one or not—in fact he admitted this himself, though he maintains that when he did take a note of it he found the collar did not correspond with Komaru’s number, The inference to be taken from the evidence is that the Registrar, when he shot the dog, found he had made a mistake, and to shield himself took the collar away with him. On this point Dover was decided against the n tives, but he lost the weight of even his own testimony when he admitted he could not swear the collar he produced was the one taken off the dog. He is to be coinniended for his straightforwardness, but it shows great carelessness that when lie took a note of the one collar he could not testify as to the one he put in his bag. On the other hand the owner of the dog said the collar was cut, while all the other witnesses agreed that it was unbuckled.

The case is an unfortunate one for the Council, because the effect on the natives will not be satisfactory. They are too keen now to resort to any means which will enable them to evade the tax. If the evidence for the plaintiff in this case is to be relied on, the Registrar acted very injudiciously, but when every allowance is made he can be accused of nothing more. Certainly he does not seem to have acted maliciously, as counsel for the plaintiff endeavored to show. It is ridiculous to suppose that his threatening to shoot some of the natives was more than a little bit of bounce to warn the natives against interfering with him. The case should be a lesson to him to be more cautious in the future, and the Council will have to “ pay the piper” so far,