One Defendant To Pay In Sheep-Worrying Case

Northern Advocate, 12 August 1948, Page 4

One Defendant To Pay In Sheep -Worrying Case

KAIKOHE, Thu. (Sp.).—Decision was given by Mr W. C. Harley, S.M., in the Kaikohe Police Court yesterday in the action brought by Hedley V. Kay, farmer, of Motatau, against two neighbouring Maori farmers, William Bristow and William Coffey, for £159 damages in respect of the killing and injuring by dogs of 77 sheep during the first week of June.

Witnesses for the plaintiff were heard in the Kawakawa Court sitting on Monday, and yesterday witnesses for . the defence were put in the witnessstand. Ethelbert Morfett'e, of Kaikohe, gave evidence regarding values of sheep of the type farmed by Mr Kay. He said the claims were’ on a conservative basis. William" Bristow said the bitch which the plantiff's employee had shot at had strayed on to his property a long time before. He supposed, therefore, that it was probably his under the law. KILLED WITCH WITH STICK The bitch had not been registered by him. He ’had killed her a few days after the sheep-worrying incident, but only because she would not work. She was feeding five pups at the time. “Instead of her chasing the cows, I was chasing the cows and she was chasing me," he said, “so I turned round when she was at my heels and hit her v/ith a piece of wood I was carrying. She lay still and so I killed her.”

“I have listened carefully to the evidence,” said the magistrate. “In my own mind I have no doubt about the answer. “I am as certain as I can possibly be that Bristow’s dog was one of the offenders. “However, it is extremely doubtful that Coffey's dogs were in it. He is therefore out of the party. The dog outside the court is not the one described as having been shot. The question of the ownership of that dog is left open.

“On the question of damages, the evidence is fairly lucid as to values. The plaintiff is entitled to recover his losses to sheep killed and injured as claimed, £129/5/-. “I think his £lO claim is also a fair one for the extra time, labour and work involved in straightening up the mess.

“As to the general damages claim, there is no doubt that further damage will occur to the ewes, but I do not think it is any use my awarding the £2O asked for, so I will give £5 under that head.” • NO COSTS FOR WINNER He then gave judgment for Kay against Bristow for the amounts stated, with costs. In the action against Coffey, however, he gave judgment for defendant, with costs against Kay. Mr D. A. Williams asked that, since neither defendant had been willing to go to Kay for a discussion, costs should be allowed against Coffey, as it was largely his own fault that an action had been brought against him at ail.

William Coffey maintained that a dog, described as “an old black dog, going grey,” which Mr Kay had killed by shooting after he had caught it in the act of worrying his sheep, was definitely not his. The court adjourned for a moment to inspect two dogs which were tied up on the front lawn of the courthouse. One of them, a black and white dog, Coffey declared was the only dog he possessed other than a pup of under two years, The other, black and tan, ; had been his, but he had given it away a year ago.

Niko Waiomio and Rangi White gave evidence regarding Coffey’s dogs. For Coffey, Mr J. A. Stubbs claimed that it had not been proved that the animal shot and killed had belonged to him or had ever been in his company.

“Oh, no,” said the magistrate. “It’s been a fair hearing and a, fair trial. Coffey has won, and he should not have to pay costs now.”