CATTLE DOG SHOT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 113, 14 May 1936, Page 11

CATTLE DOG SHOT.

CLAIM AGAINST FARMER. PROVISIONS OF ACT. (By Teleeraph—Own Correspondent.) NAPIER, this day. Written judgment for £20 was given by Mr. J. Miller, S.M., yesterday in a case in which Arthur Pritch&rd, a drover, claimed that sum from Stanley Stafford, a farmer. The claim followed the shooting of plaintiff's dog by defendant. On November 19 last Pritchard missed his leading dog at Mohaka while on his way to Gisborne to drove cattle. About two .months later the dog was shot by an employe© of Stafford under Stafford's instructions. The more important part of the magistrate's judgment reads as follows, and begins with an allusion to evidence that the dog was one of a pack: "Enticing his (defendant's) dogs away was not justification. The only justification provided by the Act—the Dogs Registration Act, 1908 —is protection of lambs at the time the damage was done, and not after it was caused. The second excuse also is not available, for it must be present danger and not anticipated danger." His Worship then quoted the following judgment: "There is no right to kill a trespassing dog. In order to legalise or legally to justify such an act it must be proved that it was done under the nrcessity of or for the purpose of protecting a person or saving property in peril the moment of the act." "The Dogs Registration Act," the judgment continued, "provides for legal justification in that a dog may be killed for the protection of sheep or cattle. The provisions, however, must be strictly complied with. The strict construction of sections 25 and >26 in the Act is demonstrated (in cases) in which it was held that there was no justification in shooting a dog after worrying or after running at large had ceased.