LYNCH LAW.
To the Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald.

SIR, - Knowing your excellent journal ever ready to point out the best means of redressing a grievance, I lay my case before you. I am aware that much of late has been said and written respecting the Goat Nuisance, but have any steps been taken to stop the incursions of these ruthless invaders upon our gardens and properties. I awoke this morning to find my garden completely divested of flowers and vegetables, and the work of some months destroyed in a few hours, in defiance of a sound four-foot defence (sic!) surrounding the same. If Lynch Law is allowable many of my neighbours are anxious to form a Goat Exterminating Company to speedily abolish the tribe, - or any better suggestions you can make will be esteemed a favour, - to put an end to this pest. Surely the authorities must know that mine is not an idle complaint. My choler is at boiling point, and if the goats (more particularly at Woolloomooloo) are not to be confined or killed, the same will kill

Yours obediently,
A SUBSCRIBER.

[Kids may be boiled and eaten with onion sauce and melted butter. When done properly they are nearly as tender as rabbits. – See Modern Cookery.]

THE DOG NUISANCE.

To the Editor of the Age.

14 November, 1854.

SIR, - There is an old proverb which puts forth in concise and pithy words that: “Every dog had his day.” Now the question which puzzles me, and is not clear and palpable to my reasoning faculties, is this: - are the dogs of Melbourne to be classed with those happy and ancient dogs who were said to have had their day; because I would meekly and dispassionately ask this question, if they have not had their day, to what extent may they be allowed to go before they arrive at that climax? They lie on the pathways of the city and suburbs, compelling the wayfarer to make a circuit round them; they rush out upon you in an evening walk, barking and snarling from every hole and corner, and in making a friendly visit to some neighbour you are forewarned to mind the dog, perhaps barely in time to get out of reach of him. Now I am not an enemy of the dog, but I think some regulation ought to be adopted to keep them within limits. In London the same nuisance existed years ago, but a wise legislation provided a remedy, and the nuisance ceased to exist.

By a law which came into force in February last, a sum of twelve shillings per head is charged on every dog, and the fact of harbouring him was sufficient to render any such person liable to the tax. There are a great number of dogs in this Colony of no earthly use, mere curs and mongrels, - why should such be allowed to run loose to the annoyance of the public? Is it not time that something was done to check this growing evil? If it is necessary to keep a good house dog, let him be properly muzzled and chained during the day, and, as in Adelaide, let every dog prowling about the streets be secured by the police, and if not claimed in reasonable time and a fine paid, let it be destroyed.

I am, Sir, your Obedient Servant,
W. J. PALMER.

Police Office

 Wednesday, February 9.

THE PIG RACKET. – Information having been laid by the chief constable against sundry individuals in the town, some for allowing their “squeakers” to go prowling about the streets of the town, and others for keeping “grunters” in styes within a shorter distance from the streets than allowed by the Police Act, several parties appeared on summons this day to answer these various charges. The first case called on was Thomas Grover, who was charged with allowing his pigs to go at large on the streets and public places; in this case the information was withdrawn, as it appeared that although the pigs were illegally at large, they were not found in the streets or public ways, but on an uninclosed allotment of an individual who did not complain of the nuisance. – Mr H. Blunden was then sentenced to pay a fine of 5s. and 7s. for allowing young “porkers” to go at large without a tender. – Joseph Lee and John Duffin were next sentenced to pay a fine of 5s. and 7s. costs each for keeping pigs in styes rather too near the public streets; and Daniel Healy was sentenced to pay a similar fine for a like offence, with an addition of 2s. to the costs, for rendering it necessary to have a constable to swear to the fact. – We are glad to find so much notice taken of this nuisance, which has continued for a long time past; and we should be rejoiced to see the attention of the police directed to that worst of nuisances, dogs; for they may yet find an ample field for their exertions in this particular, which will be duly appreciated.

Wednesday February 16.

PIGS AGAIN. – M. Farrel and Wm. Fowler appeared on summons to answer informations of keeping pigs in styes at a shorter distance from the streets than forty yards; they both pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to pay the lowest fine of 5s. and 7s. costs each – Hansard was summoned for allowing his “grunters” to go illegally at large about the streets of the town; he also pleaded guilty, and had to pay his 12s. in the shape of fine and costs.

William Maloney was summoned for allowing a bull to prowl about the streets of Kelso; fined in the mitigated penalty of 5s. with 7s. costs.