DOGS SHOT

Evening Star, Issue 24002, 29 September 1941, Page 6

DOGS SHOT

ALLEGEDLY WORRYING SHEEP The claim for damages brought against James Gow, farmer, of tha Taieri, by John James Morris' and Winston Taylor, for the alleged shooting of two dogs, was' continued iu the Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M. The claim was for £5 special and £ls general damages. Mr G. T. Baylee ■ appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr C. J.L. White for the defendants. Earlier evidence was to the effect that the dogs had been shot not upon defendant’s . property, but upon the road, or on the property of the plaintiff Taylor. After lengthy testimony for the plaintiffs had been heard defendant gave evidence. He stated that ha owned about 34 rams, ranging in value from 15 guineas to £5. On the day on question they were in what was: known as the bluegum paddock, with., access _ ,ip a road being formed and of ’ which he had the grazing rights. Defendant said he saw two dogs enter hie property. He procured a pair ,of field glasses, and from his verandah saw his sheep running, with two dogs running after them. Procuring a gun, ha asked Mr Burnett, who,, came alpng at that time, to drive him up the road, Two dogs had some sheep bailed up in a corner of the road line, which was fenced across. The road was still his property, as it had not been dedicated. He yelled out to the dogs, which cun across in front of him, the sheep running into the bluegum paddock. Defendant said ho did not know the dogs, to whom they belonged, or from which direction, they came. He fired at- and wounded them with the guu produced. He followed them up aud finally destroyed the dogs. One dog, which had been wounded, he finally, despatched on defendant Taylor’s property. One of the animals had a coDar on it, but he did not know to whom either belonged. Later that night defendant said ha saw both plaintiffs and told them ha had shot two dogs. They were annoyed and threatened to fight him. Defendant said he told them he did not know whose dogs they had been, but, he found them worrying sheep on his' (defendant’s) property. Some days after the shooting, continued defendant, he noticed' one .of his rams which had a stain down the side. He took the animal- to a yard and discovered it hgd been torn, thy wound being fly-blown. He dressed and disinfected the wound.

As dogs, the animals he destroyed might be worth about 10s and £3 respectively. Mostly, they were just worthless dogs, worrying sheep. Defendant detailed other touble he had experienced from _ worrying dogs belonging to plaintiff Morris.Defendant was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr Baylee. The hearing is proceeding.