A LOST BULLDOG.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 137, 2 August 1911, Page 7

A LOST BULLDOG.

THE FINDER’S OBLIGATIONS. In the case against Roland James Sharrock, alleging that ho stole a hullhitch, the property of William- Ingram,' judgment was given recently in the Auckland S.M. Court by Mr. E. C. Cuttcn, S.M. Tire defendant, his Worship said, saw a somewhat takinglooking dog in the street, found that it was of a friendly disposition, and encouraged it to follow him homo, lie kept it at his home, and had it thebe about fourteen days before the owner discovered it in his possession. The question was whether he stole the ring. Tho first thing to notice in tho case was that taking a dog in the street in that way was a very different thing from finding a sum of money on the street. Tho money obviously was lost, but it was by no moans a necessary conclusion that a dog wandering in tho street was lost. The defendant had the dog in his possession about fourteen days, but said that he intended to take steps to find the owner. If he didn’t see an advertisement for it, he intended himself to advertise. He did not do so because he was extremely busy and really from carelessness put it off from time to time. There was evidence to show that his conduct was an admission that lie had found the dog, and that lie and his wile took it about with them, and didn’t keep it hidden. There was a nasty piece of evidence against defendant to the effect that when the owner asked him where he got the dog (without staling that ho was tho owner) defendant made a wrong statement. His Worship had very great hesitation, but this was one of tho cases in which ho wuis justified iu giving great weight to the evidence as to defendant's character and to his general surroundings. He was quite satisfied that defendant did not recognise tho interpretation liable to bo put on his acts. He was a respectable man, in a good place, and there was not the slightest temptation to do tho act ho was charged with. Ami there was no endeavour to dispose of tiie dog. His TV orship bad a good deal of doubt in the matter, but he would give it in favour of defendant, who thoroughly i deserved tho position lie had got himself into, because his conduct was very wrong. Tho case would be dismissed.