RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1994, 14 January 1890, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temwka—Monday, Jan. 13, 1890. [Before Captain C. A. Wray, R.M.] UNREGISTERED DOC. A. W. Gaze, clerk to the Arowhenua Town Board, was charged on the information of Edward Pilbrotr, clerk to the Temuka Town Board, with having on the 19th Deoember last an unregistered dog iu his posse-ssion. Mr Salmond appeared for Mr Pilbro v, and Mr Oathro for Mr Gaze. In this oK.se Mr Gaza registered his dog with the Arowhenua Town Board, and his action in doing so led to the case being brought into oourt,

Mr Salmond explained the case, and read section 7 of tho Dogs Registration to show that the dog should be registered in tho district in which its owner lived. The only question was whether the Town District was entitled to get the fees or whether they ought to go to Lhe County Oounoil. Mr Oathro said he did not intend to raise that question. Me argued that the Oourt had no jurisdiction, because the o&se had not be6n brought within six months of tho Ist of Jamary last year, as required by law. Mr Salmond argued that the case oould be brought any time during the year, and the Oourt upheld this view of it.

Edward Pilbrow, the plaintiff, was called, and gave evidence to tho effect that the defendant lived in Temuka, and had three dogs. I'o Mr Oathro: The dog has not been registered. Mr Gaze promised to register, but did not. It was not the custom with tha registrars of the various bodies to regiiter eaoh other's dogs. If they registered a dog in a mistake they were to refund the money. Mr Stubbs wan sent out to decide the cn.ee for the County Oounoil, and tha agreement was the result.

Alf. W. Giz-!: I remember an agraement beiiig entered uii.o iu June las*, to Uie eifeot that regictniirc should ouly register dogs within their o*n dnvuiote. lhe cuatom previously had been to regiitar any dogs. Witness's dogj had buu registered before tho agreement, en April 7h. The agreement was oruughni under Ue notice of the boaid, and it waa apprvVud, i'o Mr in April. Mr Pilbro. w told me to register tu* dog, ai;fi I did so. Of course, I knew he meaut that I should regisi.or iu his own district. Tns dog is i egieu-red in Arowhenua, i'o His VVorct.jp: I have a place of business in both Tea-uka and Arowhenua. Ido as much cf my businesß in Arowhenua aa in Temuka.

Mr Gsthro raised the point that it was the cu&tom with the registrars to register any dogs previous to arriving at the agreement produced. He also urged tha;* it was quite t'gitimate for Mr Gaza to register in Aiowftenua, e.k ho had a p.ace of business there. Mr Sslmond put in the o»se of ididdlemiss v. Salmond to show that having two places of Duame&s would not affect the case, His Worship held that the dog ought to have been registered where the otraur tf it lived, and inflicted a fine of one shilling, together with a' guinsa solicitor's fee. Judgment by default wai given in the cases of W. 0. Houlston v. Mary Moulton, olaim £5 2a lid, and Same v. Jeßoie Evans claim #1 18» 3d. ' Tho Oourt then rose.