A Dog Registration Case.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6694, 6 November 1889, Page 4

A Dog Registration Case.

HAED SWEARING. The principal case dealt with yesterday —civil case day — at the Timaru Magistrate's Court was a peculiar ono, and marked by tome very tough swearing on one side or the other. The plaintiff, J. Hun-ell, who had been employed as shepherd on Mistake Station, swore that he gave the Manager, li. Guthrie, £1 2s 6d, to register three dog 3he had, as the Manager was going to register his own. Shortly after, Guthrie told him he had registered them, a bundle of collara had come, and he could take threo of them. Hurreli swore ho asked for the " tickets," and was told by Guthrie' they wero indoors ; another time would do. Some months later Hurreli left the station, and at Silverstream wa3 met by W. H. Smith, Dog-tax collector to the County Council, who demanded registration fees, aB Hurreli had four dogs with him aud hiß name did not appuar in the books. Hurreli referred Smith to Guthrie, as the latter had told him to do, but Smith replied that it was no part of his business to ride about tho country on auoh an errand. Hurreli mot Guthrie at Burkes Pass, and got from him a letter, tho contents of which he did not know, to satisfy Smith. Smith waa not satisfied by it, and laid an information. Hurreli only got the summons the day before that fixed for the hearing, did not attend, and was fined £2. On receipt of the summoiia he registered his four dogs at a cost of 255. In this letter to Smith, Guthrie stated that the dogs — ono being specially ! mentioned — were his at the time of the registration. Hurreli this, but swore that Guthrie had told him to Bay so if there was any bother made about the fees. The defendant contradicted every one of the plaintiff's statements. He had never received any monoy from Hurreli to register the dogs ; had registered them as his own because, at that time, all tho dogs Hurreli was working were his (Guthrie's). Hurreli never asked 1 him for the receipts till af tet ho wa3 fined. He never told Hurreli to take any collaro. Hurreli knew perfectly ■. well what was in the letter to Smith, as it was read over to him twice, the .letter being written at hiß request. They load had Beveral dealings about dogs, one state of the caso boing that Hurreli really had none of his own at the time of the registration. After writing the letter to Smith, for Hurreli, he heard no more j about the matter until Hurreli came to the 1 station, stated he had been fined £7, and wanted to borrow the money, a request which was declined. He-made no claim or demand such aB he now Bued for, viz., a return of money paid for the registration _Sl'2s 6d, £2 the fine, and £4, coals of journeys to obtain a settlement, total £7 -7s 6d. The Magistrate, Mr Wray, said it was a 'hard case, as it was simply oath against oath ; but he decided that Hurrell's conduct whon he waa Bunimoned turned the case against him. If he had really paid the money, as ho now asserted, he would have taken Borne steps to bring this fact before the notice of the Bench, and so have avoided the five, or have had it much reduced. Judgment was therefore , given for defendant, with coats.