RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2117, 16 October 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY.

(Before W. Fbaseb, Esq., B. M.)

ALLEGED DOG POISONING.

John Mcßae was charged that he did unlawfully hill a certain dog the property of one Edward Simpson, and of the value of £10, by administering poison, known as strychnine, to it. Mr Macdonald for defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Tyler appeared for informant, and in opening the case, said the information was laid under .the 41st section of the Malicious Injuries to Property Act of 1867, which clause he read, providing for imprisonment with or without hard labor, or for fine.- He said the dog killed was a valuable sporting dog, and he would be able to prove that it was of the value stated. Mr Tyler then stated the circumstances attending the death of the dog, the suspicions attaching to .defendant, and the subsequent enquiries made by prossecutor resulting in the discovery that on the day before tbe dog died defendant had purchased poison from Messrs Spencer and Hall. This had been admitted by defendant, who also admitted that the dog had a whole sixpence worth of strychnine. An analysis of the contents of the dog's stomach proved the presence of poison, and taking the circumstances into consideration it would be for the Court to say whether the act had been unlawfully and maliciously done. He thought the evidence would go to prove that it was so done. Doing an act of the kind wilfully would imply malice. Mr Macdonald said he could not plead guilty to the offence, but it would be admitted that strychnine was laid, and informant's dog might have had it. He would admit that the dog died of poison, that poison was laid in his client's garden, and that complainant's dog may have taken it.

. Edward Simpson deposed— That he resided in Harvey street, Grahamstown, opposite to defendant's place. The plan produced represented the position of their respective houses. On the morning of the sth. instant witness heard a noise and he got up, when he found Ms dog dead. Witness believed from what he heard and what he saw that the dog was poisoned. Made enquiries, and then took professional advice. Also decided to have the dog's stomach analysed. Witness went to defendant and told him that he was going to get the dog's stomach analysed, and he might wish to be present. He replied that it was not any use ;. the dog got a whole sixpence worth. What right, he said, had the dog in his garden ? Witness had known defendant for about 12 months, and at one time he was constantly in witness' house. But since Christmas he had ceased to visit witness and they had not exchanged words. The dog was a retriever. Witness was a sporting man, and he valued the dog at £10! The dog was second to none on the field as a retriever. He was a really good dog. Had had several offers to buy the dog, but wouldn't sell him. The dog would, if complainant dropped anything, go as far as Punga Flat and recover it. If he was in circumstances to keep the dog he would not sell it for £10. The dog was worth that to him. Cross-examined by Mr Macdonald—ln my present circumstances if I had been offered £10 for the dog. I would take it. The difference between defendant and me was about a money matter. Defendant was the creditor and I was the debtor. It was somewhere about Christmas time the money matter which, caused the difference occurred.

Sergeant Elliott deposed—That in consequence of some information given him by last witness he saw defendant and he had a conversation with him. Told him he wanted to see about the dog that was poisoned. Defendant said his garden was destroyed by dogs, and he got some strychnine for them and laid it in the garden. He said lie was sorry the dog was poisoned. He £jot the strychnine from Spencer and Hall. He also said he had to get some strychnine before as the dogs completely ruined his garden. William Cole, miner, deposed — That he was working at the Pumping Association. Knew defendant, who was also employed at the Pumping Association. Two or three months ago defendant asked witness if he knew the best thing to poison a dog. Witness told him he had heard strychnine, and he then referred him to Alec Jamieson. Witness knew Mr Simpson's dog, which he had seen with Mcltae at the Pumping Association. It was a good dog, and he heard that if you dropped a half-crown at Grahamstown and took the dog to Tararu he would come back and fetch it.

Cross-examined by Mr Macdonald— Mcßae seemed partial to the dog. John James Woods, miner, deposed— That he knew Simpson, the prosecutor, and knew his dog very well. Had made use of the dog often, while shooting. It was a very good dog. You would never lose a bird. It was worth £10 to a sporting man. * William Kea, miner, deposed—That he knew Mr Simpson's sporting dog. Had been in company with the owner when the dog was in use. He was a very good dog —the best he had come across in New Zealand. If the dog were his he would part with him for £10. This was the case.

Mr Macdonald said if that were the case he was prepared to admit that the facts were pretty conclusive, but the inference from those facts was another thing. He thought he would be able to convince the Bench that this case should not have been brought on the criminal side of this Court. No doubt if it had been otherwise Mr Mcßae would have been cast in damages for killing the dog. His learned friend had carried the argument a little too far when he said that wilful killing was necessarily malicious and unlawful. Mr Tyler corrected, and sail thai wliftt

he said was wilfully doing an unlawful j act inferred malice. * ]

Mr Macdonald said the act done was not contemplated by Mcßae, && it was shown that some time ago, when he had been enquiring about poison to destroy dogs, the, dog belonging to Mr Siinpspn Was going to the works with him and;he was showing off its qualities. He also expressedregret whenhe heard the dog was dead. He thought it would be seen that the offence, whatever it might be, did not come within tbe meaning of the section his learned friend had referred to. Mr Macdonald referred; at -length.-to the evidence, and the points made most of by counsel for prosecution. He said that while defendant had possibly acted unlawfully, indiscreetly or carelessly, it did not appear that he had. been actuated by malice. He might be made to pay for his carelessness or unlawful act, but he should not be branded as a malicious criminal. He quoted an authority in support of his arguments. Mr Tyler replied to the arguments of Mr Macdonald.

His Worship said in this case as in a great many others people came to him and expected him to be judge, jury and : counsel. Simpson had done this, and he ] had advised him to go to a solicitor. He > thought it would have been better for Simpson to have qlaimed damages under the Resident Magistrate's Act, and if he had done this he would have had no hesitation in giving judgment for full amount of damages claimed. He had not done this, however, but had preferred a * criminal prosecution, and he (His Worship) must find defendant guilty. The costs would be pretty heavy and defendant would have to pay a fine of 20s; £5 damages for the loss of the dog, and costs £3 9s 6d. Mr Tyler applied for the cost of the analysis to be included. His Worship said if it could be shown that he would be doing right in allowing a reasonable sum for the purpose he would do so. This was shown by a clause in the Resident Magistrate's Court Act, and the Bench allowed £2 2s for the analysis, the total being £11 9s 6d. Court adjourned.