SHEEP WORRYING COSTS

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 1, Issue 10, 12 May 1939, Page 5

SHEEP WORRYING COSTS

DOG OWNERS TO PAY

LONG CIVIL CASE ENDS

Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the sum of £80, and coats amounting t o £1.3 17s wlien the hearing W as concluded in the Wha. ka/tanc Magistrate's Court on Tuesday, before Mr E. L. Walton S.M., of the civil case in which George Melville, sheepfarmei; Whakatane. •sought damages amounting to .1:170 15s from Josepli Plamus, tobacconist and Louis Hunter, carrier of Whakatane, for, sheep alleged to have been worried by defendants' dogs. Air G, •Otley appeared for plaintiff and Mr •B. S. Barry for defendants. Tlie case occupied several hours it was part heard la.st month ..amta good deal of further evidence was called on Tuesday. The statement of claim set out that on or about December 27th, December 30tli 1938 and January 7th 1939, dogs owned by Plamus and Hunter killed 93 sheep and lambs am! Injured nine sheep. The amount -claimed was itemised under three Mieads:— (a) The sum of £93 in respect to the 93 sheep and lambs (b) The sum of £6 15s in respect . -to nine sheep worried, and 4c) The sum of £80 in respect to :.' general depreciation to the plaintiff's sheep, as a result of the at- - tack. When the case was called on Tups. '■ day, Gordon, Richard agenv, Whakatane, said that on the morning of January 7 in one of Melville's paddocks he saw sheep which had heen worried. He saw a Hver and white dog covered with mud or blood - coming through the fence. One of the passengers in his car said that "the dog might be Mr Mac Donald's and witness said he called at MaoDonald's house to see whether the <log was there. He heard it upstairs. He rang Melville and told him of tne worrj'ing. Witness said he did not know whose was the dog he saw. DOG IN ALL NIGHT "Hubert Norman Mac Donald said Kent had asked where the dog was and witness called him from upstairs, The dog had nclt been out of the house all night , . There were other similar dogs in the district. Plamus' -dog was no relation to witness' log. Moses Penny, borough inspector said Melville had told him of worrying on the property during the Christ anas holidays. He had described dogs to him as a brown and black nion grey and a liver and white English setter. Penny said he attempted to locate the dogs but did not see them come over the hill to Whakatane. On January 7 Melville rang and said he had shot at the dog and wounded it on the head or neck and asked him to look out for the dog. In the evening Penny and Melville and Jack Melville went to Plamus. The dog was chained up. DOG WAS OUT That morning he had rung Plamr-s --and asked him where the dog was. Plamus said the dog was not there. Penny then told Plamus ito chain the dog when it came home. When examined the dog was t'irty and had red mud or blood dried on it. It was hard to soy wha,t it \vas. . On examining the dog he" found a hole through the neck. It was afiesh wound with fresh blood. It was not a tick hole but iike a .303 bullet wound. Plamus. wlien the liole -was point. Ed out, seemed to think that the 'Jog which had done the worrying was his own. RIVETT'S DOG Mr J. Rivetit had had a similar dog but this had been out of town lor 12 months. It was sent away before last shooting season. To Mr Barry he said Melville got in touch with him before the third worrying. He did not see the dogs when patrolling the property. When Melville rang during the period of worrying he mentioned .Plamus and Melville as owners of the dogs. Witness did not see the owners and did not think it was his business to do so. Mr Barry: As inspector shouldn't you have seen them? —No. You waited for the dog« to kill i;ioie .sheep?— No. It was hardly my business . PLAMUS' INSPECTION Witness said that Plamus took part in examination of the woiuul ed dog. He looked closely at it. Mr Bajrry pointed out that the Mel villes said 'that he did not examine -the wound but witness maintained Plamus did. He didn't hear i.-= mention anything about getting a tdoctor to examine the wound.

The stains on the coat were dry a iid it was difficult to say whether tliev had got on that day. Thcic was a Jot of rubbish on the dog and a dog usually cleaned itself quickly Mr Barry: If a dog was engaged in killing 30 sheep he would have a lot of blood? —One would expect so, but I wouldn't.say whether the red stains were mud or blood. WOUND A FRESH ONE The wound on the neck was not likely to have been more -than n day old said witness. Mr Barry said that Melville had said he shot the dog on the li,7th December. Penny did not agree that a sport. ing dog which had been shot would stay away from that place. He was sure the wound was ?t bullet wound. EFFECT OF WORRYING George Hownjith Marsh gave evidence of the approximate value of the sheep. The three worryings would have a decidedly bad effect on the flock, the lambs being particularly affected, but he could not make an estiinalo of the amoun't lost in value without knowing the local conditions. Tin; sheep would lose condition and there would be a check in the wool growth To Mr Barry he said the -heep would recover in some respects. That closed the evidence for the plaintiff. Mr Barry said he did not propose to call evidence as itt would be purely negative. The two points r vere the ownership of the dogs and the damage done. - Identification must be certain and suspicion was not enough. The dog must be absolutely convicted. Mr Walton: One of the dogs was almost convie'ted. It was shot in the neck. It seemed to Mr Barry that the first thing after the dogs had been, identified w T ould be to inform the owner of the sheep. Swaney and Henry said they identified the dog and did not tell Melville. Mr Barry thought that only the sug gestion of Penny that it wag Hunt. er*s dog put the idea into their heads EVIDENCE CONTRADICTED The witness Penny had contradicted Melville's evidence and had said that he told Melville whose dogs !h:;y were. Plamus dog was not identified positively as the sheep worrier. The dog first came in when the party inspected Plamus' house. The Mel villes said Plamus took no interest, and wc.nUl not examine the dog. Penny said he did. MAGISTRATE'S COMMENT Mr Walton: You are only telling me part of what they said. They said that Plamus did take an interest. You know he kicked the dog and swore at it. lie is alleged to have called it a name no one likes. If yon did that to a human being you would "take an interest'' in it. When Mr Barry referred to ihc doubt whether the stains were blood the magistrate said that Plamus could have had them analysed. His own experience showed him that a dog cleaned itself qukkly. CANINE INTELLIGENCE Mr Barry continued that Plamus' dog would have had too much intelligence to go back to the place where it was shot. "Human beings are credited with more intelligence than dogs,"' said Mr Walton. "Yet they oftesi do things over and over again which their intelligence tells them is wrong.' . When Mr Barry took up the mat. ter of damages and pointed out inconsistencies in the number of sheen killed and the variations in their value Mr Walton said Melville from the witness box had estimated his loss at 81. Mr Barry suggested that Melville wlien the parties inspected the skin.; tried to ''ring in" a skin. The point was not important but from Melville's demeanour in the box when he denied the incident it could he seen he knew all about it. Jack Melville had admitted that a dispute over a skin had taken place. MELVILLE'S OFFER Mr Walton: Why didn't your clients accept the oiler and check the skins* Melville offered to cake them over the property. Mr Barry said they walked a fair distance and only saw the carcase of one small lamb. Mr Walton: Each s-tep might 'u'vo saved 'them £1. Mr Barry said Melville would not have offered to accept a settlement of £50.if he had lost 81 sheep. It did

not seem reasonable. tie knew lie had lost 81 but yet he was still prepared to aecept £50. SIMPLE MAN Mr Walton: He said he. was a very siniple man. Perhaps it was in contrast to Mr Barry's elevorness. Mr .Barry: Thank you sir. The court might not uphold that claim. Mr Barry thought the average value would be li) 3 f>d. There could be no general damages. Mr Walton said he agreed it was impossible to assess the cost of giv. ing a sheep a headache. COUNSEL'S JOKE .Air Otley: If you were chased round a paddock lor three days wouldn't you lose condition, sir? Mr Walton laughed. "lit might improve my condition,;' he said. He was prepared, he said, to give generous and full compensation for the killed sheep, but without definite evidence he couldn't assess the value of the loss of condition of a sheep. Mr Barry contended that Melville had been negligent in not tracing the dogs after the first worrying but the magistrate said Melville's first duty was to the sheep. ENTITLED TO DAMAGES "You cant say he is not entitled to darnage because he didn't do> everything he could have done."' he said. "He was going morning and night looking after the sheep." After Mr Otley had briefly addressed the court Mr Walton said that he took the number of 81 sheep from plaintiff's own statement in the witness box. He was entitled to assume where one man did damage to another that what was lost of was of the best of their kind. He would award Melville £81 for the 81 sheep killed, and £5 lor Ithe nine sheep worried. No damages would be granted in respect of the claim for £30 general damages. Costs were allowed against defendants.