SHEER WORRYING

Hokitika Guardian, 3 December 1938, Page 2

SHEER WORRYING

CASE AT HOKITIKA. FARMER’S SUCCESSFUL ACTION. When Frederick Brown, a farmer at South Hokitika, arrived home at his farm on August 3 last, he was informed by his wife that two dogs had been worrying sheep on his property earlier that afternoon. He went out into liis paddocks and after a search, found eight sheep. All bore signs of having been worried by dogs, and were badly injured about the face and head. Six were dead and two alive. The next day and the following day Brown made a complete search of his holding, and found 13 more sheep. All had been worried by dogs, and were mutilated about the head. Of the 21 sheep found, 18 wore dead, and it was found necessary to kill the remaining 3 later. Fourteen of the sheep were ewes, and 7 hoggets. This was related to Mr Raymond Fernor, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when Brown brought an action against Frederick Williamson, contractor of Hokitika, claiming £2B for the loss of his sheep, alleged to have been worried by a fox terrier dog, owned by the defendant.

Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Elcock, and the defendant by Mr James.

Lengthy evidence was heard for both claimant and defendant, in which, for the plaintiff, it was said that on the afternoon of August 3, Mrs Brown, cycling along the road by her husband’s farm, saw two dogs worrying a sheep. She had observed one of the tiogs was a black Scotch terrier, and the other a fox terrier with black and white coat and brown face markings. She drove the dogs off, and went to the assistance of the sheep. The dogs, however, returned, and Mrs Brown drove them away a second time, and in so doing, decided to follow them. She followed behind them quite close all the way over the Hokitika railway bridge and attempted to catch them, but was unable to do so. The dogs turned off the bridge, and ran down towards the Post Office, and Mrs Brown did not follow them further.

Next day she came to town in the hope that she might again see the dogs, and find their owners. In Hamilton Street she saw the Scotch terrier, and soon after the fox terrier. She was certain they were the two dogs which had done the worrying. At her request, a constable caught the fox terrier. Mrs Williamson, wife of defendant, then came along and admitted the terrier was her husband’s, but said it could not have been responsible for the worrying as it had been home that day.

Frederick Gallop, in evidence, said when returning after his morning milk delivery in town, he saw two dogs on the road near Brown’s farm. The time would be about 10.30. One was a for terrier and was the same dog he had seen at Williamson’s home the next day, when he Mr Brown visited the defendant for witness to identify the dog. ' Other witnesses for; the plaintiff gave evidence that Williamson’s dog had been seen worrying a sheep on the aerodrome, and had to be driven off. The defence was a complete denial that Williamson’s' dog was the dog responsible* for the worrying, and it was said in evidence that the dog, at the time when the worrying was taking place, was at home with defendant's wife and daughter on a front verandah.

Two terriers were displayed in the Court at different times, one being defendant’s dog, and the other a very similar dog, the defence stressing the likeness between the dogs, and pointing out the possibility of mistaken identity. “On a consideration of the evidence of this case,” said the S.M., in giving his decision, “the following facts emerge: Mrs Brown, whom I thought a very good witness, identified both the dogs worrying the sheep. She followed them a considerable distance, tried to catch them, and had an excellent'opportunity of observing them. Next day she comes to town and catches the dogs. She is in no doubt, and is positive about them. It is a significant fact that both were identified, and that the witness was not trapped into saying that the first dog in Court was the dog in question. Air Gallop’s evidence was also convincing, and lie, too, disavowed the first dog in Court.

“The evidence of the defence,” continued the' Magistrate, “if believed, accounts for the presence of the dog from 1.45 p.m. to 3 p.m. on this particular day, and this is the very time that Airs Brown says the dogs did the worrying. If I accept Airs Williamson’s evidence, it must follow that the dogs Airs Brown saw were sun.other dogs. “1 was not particularly impressed with the evidence of the defence. 1 do not suggest the evidence was not truthful, but I cannot accept a detailed

iiig trees etc. on the other, there is little room for two people to walk abreast in comfort. This' is a mailer which should receive the attention of the Borough Council’s officers if residents do not do their part.

j account of the casual actions of the dog on August 3. “Any doubts, however,” proceeded the S.AL, “were removed by certain other facts. The presence of a red niarfc on the dog’s throat, for instance. It was not proved to bo blood, but the fact that it was there,, entitles it to consideration.

“Again in all dog worrying cases, a very significant fact is the dog’s reputation, Now there was definite evi- | dence that defendant’s dog had been detected in the act of sheep-worrying. It is well-known that a dog once acquiring a habit of that kind, goes back to it. Tt is also a well-known fact that dogs collaborating in such an act have a tendency to hunt together, and associate with each other for some days after the event. There was no mistaking the Scotch terrier and the fact that the fox, terrier was the day after the worrying, in the company of the other dog; lends great strength, and probability to the fact that it was in association with the Scotch terrier .on the day the worrying occurred. “These tacts establish the plaintiff's case, and lie is entitled to the verdict. “In such cases, where two dogs are concerned, it is customary to charge half the damage to each owner, unless it is shown one dog has contributed more than the other to the worrying, and I give judgment for the plaintiff for £l4, with Court costs, witness expenses, and solicitor’s fee according

to scale.” Court costs totalled £2/2/-, witness expenses £3/7/-, and solicitor's fee £2/12/-.