DOG HIT BY LORRY

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 3249, 7 April 1943, Page 4

DOG HIT BY LORRY

SEQUEL HEARD IN COURT FARMER SUES FOR £25 ACCIDENT ON MAIN HIGHWAY A dog which it was claimed was worth £25 was\ the cause of litigation on Monday when C. (Hughes, a Waitekauri farmer, proceeded against Brenan and Company, Ltd., carriers, of P’aeroa, for that amount, the dog having died after it had been struck by one of defendants’ lorries on the Waihi-Paeroa Main Highway. Mr R. S. Carden represented Brenan & Co., Ltd., and 'Mr H. T. Gillies (Hamilton), represented Hughes. Prior to the case proceeding all witnesses were ordered out of court.

Mr Gillies that his client claimed that on February 26 he was driving a mob of 17 sheep along the Waihi-Paeroa road from Waihi accompanied by his brother and a Mr Parker. He had his valuable sheep dog with him and the were travelling’ on the left-hand side of the road followed by the three horsemen. The (jog was on the right side of the road . coming back towards his master when the truck which it was alleged was travelling fast passed the horsemen and then “mopped” up the dog. The dog was caught by the right-hand front wheel. When the lorry stopped the dog was near the back wheel of the ,vehicle which had some three or so feet to travel before it ran over the animal. Plaintiff was now claiming £25 damages as the dog was a

thoroughly trained dog ready to be entered in sheep dog trials. .Since * the accident plaintiff had purchased a six-months-old pup, a full sister to the dead dog for'which he had paid £lO. Driving Sheep C. Hughes, • farmer, of Waitekauri, stated in evidence that on Friday, February 26 he had been driving a mob of 17 sheep towards Paeroa from' Waihi, accompanied by his brother and a Mr Parker, each with a horse. His brother and Mr Parker had been mounted at the time and the party had 'been travelling in single file and he was eating- his lunch and jvalking. The . party had been strung out and he was in the centre with his brother ahead, and Parker behind him.

The sheep had been ahead of the party on the left-hand side of the road while the dog had been on the righthand" side coming back to the horsemen from the sheep. Hughes stated he noticed the truck appear about five chains behind him and estimated the speed at about'3o m.p.h. It,appeared to him the driver • braked the truck just before he hit the dog as he passed witness. The truck ran over the dog and stopped about three feet before the back wheels ran over the animal. The dog kicked a bit and rolled over the bank.

The truck driver, R. Shaw,he continued, in conversation which followed said the dog jumped right in front of the lorry and he, witness, had replied that it would, cost the driver £5O if the dog died. When he had' asked' the driver why he was travelling so fast the driver replied that he was not travelling fast

Not Seen Any Sheep

The driver, added Hughes, had stated that he had not seen any sheep. The dog later crawled up the bank and after staggering after plaintiff for a while had to be carried and died ' shortly after. Money could not have bought the dog as he had spent hours and hours training it and the dog had been almost human. He had replaced it by buying an untrained 6-months-old pup, a full sister to the dead dog for which he had paid £lO. In reply to Mr Carden witness stated that the dog had been along the road to the Waihi sale on some 20-odd occasions. The sheep had been some 65 yards ahead of the horsemen and after the accident crossed to the right side of the road. G. H. Hughes, farmhand, a brother of plaintiff, gave similar evidence to that of his brother but stated' the sheep were on the right-hand side of the road although slightly spread across the road. He had been on the left-hand side of the road in the lead of thb three horsemen. He estimatedthe speed of the lorry at 35 m.p.h. He sa,w the accident and the truck ran right over the middle, of the dog with its right-hand front wheel. J. C. Parker, a farmer of Waitekauri stated that he was the last of the three horsemen. He estimated the speed of the lorry at 30 m.p.h. He did not see the lorry hit the dog,as he was about a horse-length behind the truck. The dog was a really good animal, being "out on itsf own.” Dog With Horsemen Mr Carden said that the defence was that the driver, Shaw, came out of a cutting and saw the three horsemen

on the side of the road with the dog

trotting along with them near one of the horses. There was no sign of any sheep. As an extra precaution Shaw pulled the lorry well over on the opposite side of the road and kept a special watch for the dog. He pointed out that the. leading horseman in evidence had said that the sheep were on the right-hand side of the road while plaintiff had stated that they crossed to the right after the acci. dent. Shaw denied that the sheep were near the horsemen, as although he had a clear view for 100 yards ahead he had not seen them. Shaw, continued Mr Carden, stated that he was travelling at approximately 25 m.p.h. and when he hit the dog he had reduced to between 10 and 12 m.p.h. The fact that Shaw was able to pull up before the back wheels ran over the dog proved he was not travelling fast. Shaw claimed he was taking all due care but the dog suddenly turned and ran under the vehicle.

R. T. Shaw, truck driver of Paeroa, stated that he had been driving for over 20 years and had never previously had an accident of any kind. AVhen the accident occurred two of the Martha Gold .Mining Company’s, employees, L. Gage and J. Happi, were in the cab of the truck with him. Ran Across Road When he came over the top of the hill he stated he saw the three horsemen riding along about a horse length apart with the dog travelling beside the leading horseman on the right side of the bitumen. The dog was going in the same direction as the horsemen when he first saw it but later it turned and ran across the road and struck the lorry. He did not think wheel went over the dog which rah out from under the cab, ran over the bank and then came back onto the road at the back of the truck. He added that he was passing the horseman at a speed of between 10 and 15 m.p.h. and while passing the ( middle man the dog suddenly turned and ran in front of the truck. He immediately braked and came to a dead stop.

When he got out of the truck and walked, back to Hughes plaintiff had been a'bit abusive and had said the dog was driving sheep and he had asked where the sheep were as he could not see any on the road. When Hughes pointed the sheep out they were right off the road in a gateway bn the right-hand side. Later- he had had the distance between the spot where the accident occurred and the place where the sheep had been paced and found it to be 195yds. The dog was not working when the accident occurred, claimed Shaw. The suggestion that his speed had been* excessive was quite untrue. Passengers’ Evidence

L. Gage, an employee of the Martha Gold Mining Company, working at Waikino, stated that he had been in the cab when the accident occurred, sitting on the left-hand side. As the truck came over the top of the hill he had seen the horsemen with the dog running alongside the first horseman. As the truck was passing the horsemen the dog seemed to run across in front and he had thought the’ dog was trying to bite the lorry. Shaw had braked as soon as the dog ran across and the truck had pulled up in half-a-length. He had had a clear view of the road and had not seen any sheep. After the accident Hughes had pointed out the sheep which had been what he considered was some 200 yards ahead right off the road in a gateway. He did not see any sheep cross the road.

J. Happi, another employee of the Martha Gold Mining Company, working at Waikino, stated that he had been seated in the middle of the cab seat of the truck when the accident occurred. The dog when he first saw it was running along beside the front horseman and had tried to cross the road just as the truck was passing. He did not see any sheep on the road nor did he see any cross although he had had a clear view of the road all

the time. The dog was not working when the accident took place. He had not got out of the truck after the accident but had sat in the cab all the time where he had a good view of the road and he had not see any sheep cross the road.

In entering judgment for the plaintiff the Magistrate allowed £l5 the dog with witness’ expenses £§ 4s, court, costs £1 12s, solicitor’s fee, £2 12s.