ALLEGED THEFT OF A DOG.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2738, 17 February 1910, Page 7

ALLEGED THEFT OF A DOG.

THE ACCUSED ACQUITTED

A tall and powerfully built man named James Preston was, at the Police Court yesterday .morning, before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., charged with having on October 30th, 1909, committed the .theft of a sheep dog, valued at £7, the property of John Munro. Sergeant Hutton conducted the case for the prosecution, and accused, who pleaded not guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily, was defendedebyi Mr Stock.

John Munro, the owner of the dog, said he was a shepherd, residing at ■Patutahi. In the early part of January, 1909, he lent accused a sheep dog on the conditions that lie would return it at any time, on a month’s notice. It was also arranged that, should the dog be lost or killed, accused should pay him £7. Ho was under the impression that ho was to receive some small consideration from accused for the loan of the dog. His (witness’) brother was. present during the conversation, which led up to the arrangement about the dog. About October Ist ho (witness) saw accused, and as he wanted the dog, he, in accordance with agreement, gave accused notice to hand over the dog in one month. Accused said that he could not give up the dog until after shearing. In November he again saw accused in Gisborne, and asked him for the dog. Accused replied that ho had lost tho dog coming to town, and lie (witness) told him that he would claim the dog if lie saw it with anyone. Subsequently he discovered the dog in the possession of a man named Maunscll, who handed it over to him. At no time did lie ever give accused permission to sell the dog or part with it in any way. By Mr Stock: He had known the accused for 7 years, and had, on occasions, lent him dogs for the purpose of breaking in. About three years ago h© lent accused a dog and put a value on it. telling accused that he could sell it if he could obtain the figure. Tho dog alleged to have been stolen, however, was not an unbroken dog, and he told accused distinctly-that he was not to sell it. When accused told him that the dog was lost, be offered to give li./ii a bitch in exchange. He (witness) refused to deal, but took a young dog on trial for a fortnight, which he subsequently found unsuitable and returned. This dog was not by way of compensation for the lost dog, and if it suited him he was to pay £3 or £4 for it.

William Munro, brother of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence regarding the lending of the dog to accused, and the terms of the agreement also concerning accused’s statement that he had lost it, and offer to replace it with a bitch. He was also emphatic that his brother told accused that ho would not on any account sell the dog in dispute. Cecil Maunsell, shepherd at Mangalieia station, gave evidence to the effect that on October 25th accused sold him the dog in question, which he knew by the name of “Duff” for £B. and gave a stamped receipt (produced). By Mr Stock: He did not think at the time that accused was a man who Would steal a dbg or sell it if he had no right to. Accused made no mention of having lost any dogs. In outlining the case for tho defence Mr Stock commented upon the fact of accused’s having voluntarily returned to Gisborne, which pointed strongly to the fact that in disposing of the dog accused had no felonious intent. There was no foundation whatever for the charge of stealing the dog. James Preston, tho accused, said that he had worked for Mr Humphrey Bayly for close on ten years, and no "fault had ever been found with him. He was trusted by Mr Bayly and at times had £SOO or £6OO of his employer’s money in his pocket. Accused further outlined the agreement regarding the dog in dispute. To'tlie best of his recollection Munro told him to take the dog, work it, and break it in, and said that he considered the dog was worth £7. He did not remember Munro saying that he was not to sell the dog, but there was some mention of paying for it if it was lost, stolen, or met with an accident. When lie came to town about October 23th., he brought his dogs and tied them up at tho Masonic Stables. That night, however, lie lost all the dogs, somebody letting them go, and he told Munro about it, offering him the best bitch he had in lieu of the one that was lost. Ho gave Munro another dog in .part payment for his dog that had been lost. He found the dog in dispute, Munro’s dog, after his conversation with Munro. On November 9th he went on his honeymoon trip to Tasmania, and had no intention of defrauding Munro when he sold the dog to Maunsell.

By Sergt. Hutton: He had no conversation with Maunsell prior to the day on which he sold him the dog. At that time he offered Maunsell tho 'whole tea.m of dogs at a figure. There was no trouble pending regarding another dog. He sold the dog because he had a right to do so, and had not been given an opportunity, since his return to Gisborne, to pay Munro for it. His Worship said that the evidence in the case was not at all satisfactory, and there appeared to he a doubt whether accused had, or had not, a right to sell the dog. He certainly thought that after Munro had notified accused that he wanted the dog back that it should not have been sold. He ‘ also thought that the ease should have been the subject of a civil action. The question he had to consider was whether, in selling the dog, accused did so with felonious/ intent. There appeared to be some considerable doubt about it, and accused was entitled to the benefit of it. Accused would be discharged.