This was ay adjourned summons aguinst defendant for neglecting to take out a licen in respect of his dog. raised the question cumbent on the Municipal Cour Is to give notice to dog owners that their licenses have expired.
Mr. Loftus Jones now appeared to! represent the Municipal Council.
His Worship reminded defendant that he had been instructed at the last hearing to take oura license in the meantime, ami asked if this had beau don Dofendant—I have made an application for a license but received nu answer.
Mr. Jonos—I shall deal with that Inter His Worship—I told you to go round to the Municipal office, and take out a license.
Defendant—I understood your Worship that I was to make application for a license.
Mr. Jones pointed out that the application was in writing and unaccompanied by any fee. It asked that the Ticonso be sent to defendant.
His Worship (to defeudant)—Did you sond that letter Defendant—I sent it; I understood I was to make application.
His Worship—You have done the best your can to put yourself out of Court.
Mr. Jones, commenting on the point raised by his Worship at the previous hearing, pointed out that the Municipal ion stated that owners of dogs were mut licenses. Even ifitwere p: shown that in some instances, for convenience. licenses had been sent to dog owners and the money collected that did not relieve defendant or other dog owners from the necessity of themselves taking out licenses, though possibly it might be taken into consideration in imposing a penal His Worship repeated that defendant had made the statement that his neigh-hours, who owned dogs, had. been called upon, and he hitwselfhad been willing today so soon as application had been made to him, but he had been then referred to Notification No 1676.
Mr. Jones read the Notificationsdealing with licenses since 1900, and showed that in all of them owners were required to take out their own licenses, under threat of penalties. Asto the practice in regard to collecting he said that no staff was kept for that purpose. Defendant was himself a collector, and as such -was out most of the day; it would therefore be more easy for hum than for most people to call was also to be noted that not a case of renewing an old license but taking one out in respect of a fresh dog altogether.
Mr. E. L. Allen, assistant overseer of taxes, at present in charge of the Tax Ottice, gave evidence in regard to the procedure followed in regard to the issue of these licenses. In the case of owners who already held licenses, he said it was usual to make out the licenses in readi-and if they were not' called for thin a certain time, and the dog owners ved within the round of a collector, they were sometimes sent out to the owner matter of convenience to the'Tax Office. In 1902 the license was sent to. defendant, because he had already one for the previous year; it was also sent in 1903, but on that occasion the license money was not paid and defendant's name was taken off the list of dog owners. That would recount for the fact. that he was not called on this year, There had been no change in the form of the Notification issued. The police had access to th Tax Office books for the purpose of di covering whether dogs wore licensed not. Witness mentioned that defendant was in arrears in his general rate.
Cross-examined, witness admitted that in the case of the general rate collectors delivered demand notes. He was not aware that signed compradore orders in payment of those rates were lying await-collection; he only knew that it was not reported to him that the money was paid. He reevguised two receipted dog licenses, produced, as made out in the name of Mr. Geddes, and remarked that the first clause printed thereon said: " This license is not transferable." It was not usual to send out personal reminders. Witness did not remember any previous summons under this Regulation.
Defendant made a statement unsworn, He said that after the last hearing he referred to the latest Notification in the newspaper and no mention was made as to the fee. He worded his application to the Tax Office accordingly. Ho understood he was simply to notify them that he kad dog.
His Worship—They were already aware of that.
Defoudant—Yes, and I told them that to' pay for the license mons was applied for.
The Tax Office shroff, who called in August last year with a license for 1903, said he saw defendant's wife, who told him defendant would call at the office and His Worship said it had been represented to him that there were two practices in regard to dog owners, and while in some cases license foes were collected, in others the owner hud to attend at his own trouble, It seemed to him, however, that the Tax Office did their best' to assist reasonable ratepayers and others in taking out licenses, and it was a duty in return not to obstruct the Tax Office, He was convinced that defendant had obstructed the Tax Office and in fining him $10, be warned him that if a license were not within the next 24 hours he ran the risk of being fined again, Shanghai, 9th June, Before J. ©. E, Douaras, Esq. (Coroner)
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.