FEILDING COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 175, 25 June 1926, Page 7

FEILDING COURT.

SPECIAL SITTING

' [From Our Own Correspondent.] FEILDING, June 25. Mr R. M. AViftson, S.M., presided over a special sitting of the Magistrate’s Court this morning. Driving a horse and trap at night without lights cost James . Scandlyn 10s. ‘ Ronald AVorsfold and Ronald Tait pleaded guilty to riding bicycles at night without a light and were each fined 7s. VICIOUS DOG TO BE DESTROYED. The court mentioned the case of the Policy v. John Frederick Bishop, drover, of Fcilding, in which the former proceeded against Bishop yesterday for having a dog at largo that was allegedly a menace to the public. Giving evidence, Constable Roche stated that, after the court proceedings yesterday, he haijr gone to defendant’s rsidence accompanied by Constable McColl and had identified the dog. He had recognised the dog as soon as he saw it among defendant’s other dogs.- Mrs Bishop had asked him if he would like the dog let off the chain to see whether it was still vicious, as alleged, toward the constable, but he refused. According to Mrs Bishop, the dog did not belong to her husband. Cross-examined by Mr Power, witness stated that he could still identify tho dog, which ’ was subsequently brought into court and identified. , In evidence, defendant said that he had tied the dog up on the day it was alleged to have bitten the constable and, while it was tied up. it was impossible for the dog to bite anyone. The dog was still tied up when he had got home on the day in question, but defendant admitted having other dogs loose. The dog identified by Constable Roche was the quietest one he had and belonged to a person in Turakina. Cross-examined by Sergeant Cahill, defendant said that he Jiad tied Iris dogs up to stop them getting too fat when, not working; not because they were vicious. His AA r orship, in giving judgment for the police, said that there was no do.ubt that the dog was a vicious . animal while not under proper control. He accepted the constable’s evidence as the true version of tho case and, in issuing an order for the dog to be destroyed, warned defendant tlrat he was liable to a fine of 30s if the dog was found alive to-morrow, and 20s per day thereafter#