STRATFORD.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 October 1915, Page 3

STRATFORD.

(From Our Own Correspondent.) Strntfonl, Yesterday, A. AND P. ASSOCIATION.

Tin- executive committee of the above Association met la-.t evening, .Mr. It. Masters (president) being in the chair. The president was appointed a delegate to attend a meeting at Pulincrston North with a view of the formation of a swine breeders' association. Mr. T. Kirkwood forwarded his resignation as chairman of the dog section. This was accepted with regret, and Mr. H. Masters was appointed in his place. The committee meet on Monday night to allot the special prizes. It was decided that the charge for adults to the members' stand should be os each: people's stand, adults Is, children (id. Motor cars are to be charged Is and provision has been made for a paddock opposite the showground for these to stand.

Mr. R. McK. Morrison resigned from his position of steward in charge of the grandstands, and Mr. E. A. Ormond was appointed to the position. It was decided to make additions to the ticket office for the convenience of members wishing to pay their subscriptions on show days. Tenders are to be called for the carting for show days.

POLICE COURT. VALUABLE PRIZE DOG SHOT. At the Police Court this morning, before Mr. W. L. Kenrick, S.M., Raymond Mcßeth was charged witli wilfully destroying a dog valued at £35, the property of J. W. McMillan. On being asked as to whether he preferred to be dealt with summarily, the defendant replied, "Yes," and through Mr. Spence, his solicitor, entered a plea of "not guilty." Sergeant Dale, who prosecuted, called James Watson McMillan, dairy engineer and partner in the firm of McMillan and Fredrie who said some three years ago he imported two pedigree Airedale terriers from England, and he valued them at £35 each. He missed the dog about two months ago, and advertised for same in the local paper. The dog was registered with the Stratford Borough Council. He could not swear that the dog had a collar on the day he was missed, but it was customary for the dog to wear one. When the dog was imported its fang-teeth had been filed. On the 13th inst he accompanied the police to defendant's parents' residence on the Pembroke Road, and saw the remains of the dog, and identified, the dog as his by the teeth being field and the color of the hair. Defendant was present and said, in reply to a question, that he knew that it was witness's dog. Defendant also said that several .dogs were barking on that night, and he got up and shot a dog. There was no collar on the dog when dug up.

Cross-examined: He had never had a complaint that his dog worried cats and fowls, but another of his dogs had been conspicuous in this respect. He did not tell Mrs. Mcßeth, defendant's mother, that the dog had got off the chain and slipped its collar. He did not have the registration receipt with him to produce.

Sergeant Dale: There is no doubt that the dog was registered.

Constable McGowan said that about the middle of July Mr. McMillan reported the loss of the dog, and he proceeded to make inquiries, and on the 4th inst. he got further information and obtained a search warrant. On the way to defendant's parents' residence, lie met him, and explained the reason of his visit, and defendant then admitted that lie had shot the dog, and it was buried in the garden. Asked his reason for shooting it, defendant said he could not sleep on account of the dog's barking, and he got up aad shot the first dog. He accompanied defendant .to. the garden, and was shown where the dog was buried. Witness dug it up and Mr. McMillan identified the dog as his by the teeth that were filed. Defendant said it was a black and tan dog he had shot, and said he knew it was McMillan's dog. He subsequently heard defendant admit to McMillan that he knew it was his dog. There was no collar or chain on the dog when dug up. He had not made any enquiries about the collar. Mr. R. Spenee said there was no doubt the dog had been shot by defendant, and it was regrettable that a valuable dog should have been destroyed. His client's parents had been worried by dogs chasing fowls and cats and running over the garden. Defendant heard dogs barking, and could not sleep for them. He got up and went outside and saw a dog in the fowl yard, and on going towards it it went for him; lie got a revolver and shot the dog. Messrs Oxley and Anderson, who were boarding at the house, got up and assisted to remove the dog, and they would say that the dog had no collar on. Under the Act it had to be proved that the dog had his collar on, and this the prosecution had failed to do, and he submitted that the charge must fail. Further, defendant had the right, after being attacked by the dog, to shoot it. He called defendant, who said that prior to the shooting of the animal his parents' place had been overrun by dogs, and his mother informed him that they had torn up the garden, and instructed him to shoot the brutes. Next morning about 2 o'clock he heard the fowls making a noise, and got up and saw a lot of dogs fighting and barking, and scared them away. He retired to bed, and was again I disturbed, and got up and found a dog in the fowl run. It went for him, and he went into the house and got his revolver arid shot the dog. It was still in the fowl run, and there was a dead fowl in the yard. Messrs Anderson and Oxley, two boarders, arrived on the scene. Oxley went to take hold of the dog to carry it out "of the fowl run, and found it had no collar on.

To tlie police: He did not remember telling the police that the dog did not attack him. He did not take any steps .before shooting it to Ascertain if the fag had a collar on, and he had no knowledge of the dog having a collar on. He had if Winchester- repeating ride, .2"> Remington" pea-rifle, and a revolver at the house arfcl they were his property, F. D. Oxley, teller at the Bank- of New Zealand, said he remember the night the dog was shot. He heard dogs fightifig and barking from midnight, and they kept him awake. About 2 a.m. he heard a shot fired, and immediately dressed himself and went outside. He saw a dead dog in the fowl yard and was asked to help remove it. He went to get hold of the dog's collar, and found there was none.

Mrs. A. Mcßetli, defendant's mother, said she has been worried by dogs chasing the fowls and running over the garden, and had given her son full authority to shoot any dogs that came round. Mr. Spence said he had other witnesses, if necessary. His Worship said the dog being found on the land without a collar, a person had the right to shoot it. If the defendant was attacked by a dog, be has

:il-o full power to destroy same. The evidence showed that, there was no eollar on the do;;; if there had been one. the dog probably would not have been shot, but dogs wandering al night without collars were dangerous. Defendant was within his rights in destroying, but at the same time he thought the least defendant could do was 'to have told Mr. McMillan lie had shot the do-, and ask him to take it away. Defendant took a certain risk in destroying a dog if it had a collar on. The case was dismissed.

GENERAL. Mr. N. J. King has received word this morning announcing the death of Mrs. A. E. King, at Eiverton. Mrs. King (nee Miss Hutchinson), was well-known in this district, having for a number of years been on the teaching staff of the Stratford and Midhirst schools, and her early demise is regretted by a large circle of friends.

A lad named Dempster, known also as Eivett, is at present a patient at the local hospital. It appears that at school some of the boys got him down and robbed him of some marbles, and it is alleged that one lad held him by the throat, while another got his knee and pushed it into his chest with the result that the lad has received internal injuries and is in a bad way. If the facts are as reported, it certainly calls for an inquiry from the headmaster, and this ragging business should be instantly stopped. When a judgment summons case was mentioned at this morning's Court proceedings, the clerk announced that the summons had not been served, and Mr. Stanford asked why. The clerk said it was almost impossible for the bailiff to find the man; as soon as he saw the bailiff he made for the bush. Mr. Stanford said this man had been the most difficult to serve a summons with than any he knew of. Mr. Spence suggested that perhaps the bailiff might employ another man who was not known to defendant, but with a smile the clerk' of the court said the men who could be employed to do the work were all known to defendant. The Magistrate said that evidently the bailiff had made every effort to serve the summons, and he had not the power to accept a substituted summons in a civil case. Perhaps the bailiff might employ a man, and he (the bailiff) wait in the bush while the other man did the talking, and then come out of his hiding place. Finally, his Worship said; It seems to me it will be impossible to serve the summons, unless a company is brought here and surrounds the house and wait till defendant comes out.