S.M. COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9360, 8 November 1910, Page 5

S.M. COURT.

PALMERSTON—TUESDAY. (Before M A. D. Thomson, S.M.) > CIVIL CASES. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs, was entered in the following undefended caee6: —R. H. Bright (Mr Hurley) v. Ed. Page, £2 17s 6d, costs and fee 255; H. Hughes (Mr Innes) v. T. Mills, £4 19s, costs 10s; Millar. .and Giorgi (Mr Moore) v. W. D&yey, •£3 9s, costs 10s; . Dustin'e, Ltd. (Mr Innes) v. A. McLeod,. £1 10s, costs 14s!; Millar and Giorgi (Mr Moore) v. J. ilFitt, £1 19s, costs* ss. - I JUDGMENT ."'SUMMON*!.' ■

0. H. Whitehead (Mr-Overton) v. Jas. Sedtt;' Order made for. of £3 ,15s v forthwith, -in default -seven day's' imprisonment at Wanganui. DEFENDED CASES. Collin and... Hall (Mr Moore) v. Wm. Farland (Mr Hurley), claim £2 :0s lOd for goods supplied. The defence was that the goods were supplied to Mrs Farland, and that defendant was not responsible for debts incurred by her. After hearing the evidence of . the parties to the suit, during which defendant admitted he was living with hie wife at the time" the goods were delivered, judgment was given for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed with costs, £1 6s. ] A SHEEP-WORRYING CASE. Slack Bros. (Mr Loughnan) v. H. J. Woodfield (Mr Innes), claim £30 for loss of sheep and damage to others owing to worrying by . dogs. Jas. Slack, one of the plaintiffs, stated that on September 3rd l'ast there were a number of stud ewes and lambs run- [ nitng in one of the Awapcni paddocks. On that same morning he saw a couple of dogs worrying the sheep; they had one sheep down and were tearing the wool off it. They ran away when witness approached them, but he headed them off and shot at a red sporting dog. The other got away. Witness subsequently saw the defendant, who admitted that he had a red Irish setter, but that ft was at Mr Weir's. Witness went to the latter's place and the dog was not there. Woodfield promised to get the dog back for witness to see, and he was told what had taken place, also that the dog had been shot and wounded. Fully a week elapsed before witness saw file dog at Woodfield's house. He examined him and found apparent shot marks on his head and body. The dog was subsequently examined by Mr Danvers, veterinary surgeon. Witness had mo doubt that the dog he shot at and the dog he saw in Woodfield's yard, were one and the same. ■Four stud English Leicester ewes were

■killed by the dogs and three more had to be killed. Each ©we had one or more ; lambs. Three of the motherless lambs 'were saved, three were killed by tho dogs and two more motherless lambs were found subsequently. The ewes were valued at £3 3s each and the lambs at 21s each. Seven other ewes were badly bitten, but got over it. They, however, suffered greatly by their experiences.

Cross-examined by Mr Innes, witness said the skins of the dead sheep were of doubtful value, and he did not know what they realised or if they had been sold; they were badly torn, about. It was the 6hot marks that made witness sure as to the identity of the dog. A dog was produced in Court, but the shot marks were not now distinguishable, .'and it subsequently transpired, after witness had said that he would swear to the ■dog, because the shot marks were gone, that it was not the real culprit, but one of the same breed and type. Counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the above procedure against the witness, but Mr Innes justified it by stating it wa6 entirely a question of identification. The alleged offender was next brought" in to Court, but he had also lost all traces of the shot. J. Danvers, surgeon, gave evidence as to examining the dog and finding numerous shot marks upon the head, shoulder and lips. Tho evidence of the last witness closed the case for the plaintiffs. H. J. Woodfield, the defendant, denied that the dog had shown any of the shot marks, though Mr Slack seemed to think that a mark or.. tw;o on his head were caused by shot. When Mr Slack first spoke to witness about shooting the dog witness understood that he had been seriously shot and that he would not come home again. Evidence was given in support of the defence l by A. Godbas, who said that the dog was at the stable the morning it was supposed to be worrying the sheep, and by JY Cockroft, veterinary surgeon, who said he could not find any shot marks on the dog. At this" stage the Court was adjourned till the 15th inst." for the' production of further evidence.