TROUBLE OVYER A DOG.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14018, 25 March 1909, Page 6

TROUBLE OVYER A DOG.

AN INTRUDING 5 BUTCHER: A butcher's assistant named William Bowden, aged about 35, was proceeded against, before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., at the Police Court yesterday, for haying used threatening behaviour towards Mary Ellen Ludlow, a married woman residing at Devonport, who; prayed that he be bound over to keep the peace. Bowden was also charged with "having;assaulted Mrs." Ludlow. ; Mr. J. 'R. Lundon ! appeared for the complainant, and Mr.. W. Hackett for the defendant. • 1 The evidence for the prosecution showed that some time ago the defendant, while under the influence of drink, injured the* complainant's dog by throwing a brick at it in the street. The matter was reported to the police, but in consequence of the defendant-expressing regret at his action \:ind promising to pay expenses incurred in treating the dog's injury, also the value of the animal in the event of the injuries proving fatal, the police were asked to ' refrain from - prosecuting him. A month or six weeks later the dog died, and a note was , sent to the defendant acquainting ■ lim of the fact, and informing him that the expenses and value of the dog amounted to £2. Shortly afterwards (on the ; forenoon of January .• 29) lha defendant went to the complainant's house, and following her into a front, icom, told her that he would "get her three" months' for trying to Oltain money under false pretences." H? appeared lo be under the influence ot' drink, and roughly placed his hands on. Mrs. Ludlow's shoulders and shook his fist threateningly at her The defendant admitted having gone to Mrs. Ludlow's residence -to complain of her ; " imposterous" demand, but absolutely denied that he went inside the front door or in any way assaulted her. Witnesses were called in support of this contention,, but Mr. Kettle plainly stated that he did not regard some of the evidence as of .any value. \ To his mind the evidence given by the informant and her witnesses completely outweighed that, of the other witnesses and impressed him as being the truth. . The magistrate ■ said he had no hesitation whatever in convicting defendant on the ' charge of assault. Fortunately for him it was not of a very serious nature, but in any case a m.an had no right to go and abuse a married woman in her own house. On this charge he would be fined £2 and, costs In regard to an application that the defendant be bound over, to keep the peace, he (Mr. Kettle) did not think that, the conduct would be repeated, and therefore th© application would be dismissed.