RANGIORA.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5486, 11 February 1896, Page 3

RANGIORA.

Tuesday, Feb. 11. (Befre Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., Mr E. R. Good, J.P., and Mr A. Todd, J.P.) The Doa Eeqisteation. Act. — John Armstrong waa charged by G. P. Pulley with being the owner of two dogs which, on January 5, rushed out on to the public highway and frightened complainant's horse, to the danger of his life. Mr Helmore for prosecutor; Mr Deacon for defendant. The information was laid under Section 16 of the Dog Begistration Act. Witnesses were ordered out of Court. Prosecutor stated that on the evening of Jan. 2 he was driving in company with his son past defendant's place, when two dogs rushed out and attacked one following witness. Afterwards one of defendant's dogs sprang at his horse's shoulder, and caused it to swerve from the centre of the road to the fence. The horse had a fine mouth and obeyed the rein readily, otherwise the trap would have run up on the bank and overturned.. The horse was twenty-one years of age and blind of an eye. Defendant came from his gate, but made no attempt to call off the dogs. Told him that he would { make him keep his dogs at home. Henry Pulley corroborated his father's evidence. For the defence Catherine Armstrong stated that she was on the road within two chains of defendant's trap, and she was positive the dogs made no attack on his horse or frightened it in any way. The horse was going at a slow trot, and never deviated from the centre of the road. The dogs did not rush out from the gate, but were passing along the road with witness and her sister. They had a scuffle with prosecutor's dog, but took no notice whatever of the horse. Phoabe Armstrong corroborated her sister's evidence in every particular. The defendant stated that he was at his gate, but could not see the portion of the road where the dogs met. Prosecutor swore at him as he drove past, and said something about the dogs. The Stipendiary Magistrate said this appeared to be one of those cases in which there was a deplorable want of veracity. If no mistake, had been made in the date wilful perjury had been committed. The evidence on both sides had been given in a straightforward manner, and corroborated in a way that led to the belief that the stories had not been concocted, therefore it was beyond the Bench to form an opinion as to who was not speaking the truth. For the sake of the parties he hoped a mistake had been made in the date by one side or the other. The case would be dismissed without an order as to coats. Civil Cases. — W. C.Nicholls v. John Judson, claim .£ll, or the return of a horse. Mr Helmore for plaintiff. The case was adjourned the previous Court day at the request of Mr Cresswell, defendant's counsel, who wished to obtain evidence from Mr Myles Campbell, who is in the North Island. Mr Cresswell did hot appear, and at the request of defendant the case was further adjourned for a week. F. B. Lane v. J. McCarthy, claim .£2 4s. Judgment by default.

In Franco there are far more female than male bicyclists.