SHEEP WORRYING CASE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 290, 6 November 1929, Page 10

SHEEP WORRYING CASE.

QUESTION OF DAMAGES. APPEAL IN SUPREME COURT. On June 7 a dog owned by Ernest Fair, of Feilding, was, with a number of others whose owners were unknown, allegedly found worrying sheep on the property of G. H. Lankshear, a farmer," of Colyton. Eleven sheep were killed, four were injured, and five were lost, the owner claiming damages to the extent of £6l 18s. He subsequently took action in the Feilding Magistrate's Court to recover that amount. Thb Magistrate found that defendant was the owner of a black and white fox terrier dog which worried plaintiff’s sheep and was one of five dogs which were chasing and bailing up sheep on plaintiff’s property. There was, however, he said, no evidence as to the extent of the damage done by defendant’s dog, beyond injury to at least three sheep. It would be unreasonable to fix defendant with the whole of the damages, he stated, and judgment was entered for plaintiff for £ll 13s, being one-fifth of the £SB 5s damages found to have taken place. Costs were allowed on that amount, with witnesses’ expenses according to scale. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the Magistrate’s decision and an appeal against it was made in the Supreme Court this morning before His Honour Mr Justice Blair. Appellant was represented by Mr Cullinane (Feilding), Mr Cooper appearing for respondent. The appeal was lodged on the grounds that the judgment was wrong in both law and fact; that the Magistrate was wrong in finding that there was no evidence as to the damage done by respondent’s dog; also, that the Magistrate was wrong in inferring that respondent’s dog had done only one-fifth of the total damage and in deciding that the respondent should pay one-fifth only, of the damage. It was suggested that the respondent was liable to pay the whole of the amount assessed (£SB ss) and that judgment should have been given for that amount. Mr Cullinane’s argument was that any one dog of a number worrying sheep made the owner of that dog responsible for the whole of the damage done. From the point of view of natural justice, the Magistrate’s decision was wrong. Mr Cullinane then went on to quote, numerous authorities in support of his appeal. Mr Cooper submitted that the Magistrate’s decision had been a fair and equitable one under the circumstances. It was quite proper that each owner of the dogs should pay his share of the damage and the onus was on the owner of the sheep to prove the ownership of the dogs and the damage done by each. Mr Cooper also quoted cases to support his contention. His Honour reserved his decision and observed that the case was important, with probable important findings.