A SHEEP CASE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLII, 23 January 1907, Page 2

A SHEEP CASE.

ALLEGED HARASSING OF A FLOCK. CLAIM FOR £50 DAMAGES. The hearing of the action Horace Edwards v. Joseph Taylor was -continued at the Magistrate's Court after we went to press yesterday afternoon. This was a. claim for £50 damages in respect- of 19 sheep that had died and 100 lambs that had become motherless as a result; it was alleged, of the defendant's actions. Mr Eyre-Kenny, S.M., presided, and -Mr A. T. Maginniay appeared for the plaintiff and Mr J. P. Hayes for the defendant. Ernest Edwards, brother of the plaintiff, cross-examined by Mr Hayes, said that none of the sheep died before Taylor arrived on the scene, bi;t lie could not say whether any of them, lay down on the road. The knocking about may have caused the four or five old sheep to die. The 19 sheep claimed for were young sheep. Many of the flock were "poor" and "very poor" — none of the sheep were in first-class order. There was inevitably a risk to poor she^p in the process of shearing. To Mr Maginnity : He did not think there would be any difficulty in discriminating between the earmarks of plaintiff and defendant . To the Magistrate : He never at any time heard the plaintiff remonstrate with the defendant, nor did he (witness) remonstrate with the defendant. Neither was any comlaint made to the constable of the defendant's action. Arthur Chas. Burr, owner of the Enner Glynn estate, stated that the plaintiff's flock was brought to Enner Glyn on November 19th to be shorn. The sheep were poor, but on an average strong and fit to go into the shearing shed. For ewes and lambs of a similar class of sheep he had paid about £1. Lambs left without their mothers for one night were' orphaned. The lambs .in the plaintiff's flock were too young to be left without their mothers. He spoke to both Edwards and Taylor about the way in which the sheep were being handled ; he considered it depreciated the value of the sheep. The defendant was not given permission to give into witness's yards. Witness, on being shown the plaintiff's . and defendant's earmarks, saw the legibility of earmarks was affected by the age of the marks, and he would not say whether the difference between plaintiff's and defendant's earmarks was plain. If the 50 or 60 mismothered lambs referred to were stunted plaintiff had suffered damage, as the lambs would be worth only a quarter of what their value would have been had they not been stunted. The sheep, were shorn the day following their arrival. They had tc be shorn then as witness could not provide further grazing ; the sheep were still further deteriorated through beinp shorn in such a condition. John Warnock, farmer, stated that the flock was in a poor but healthy condition. He would not have liked his sheep- harassed in the same way plaintiff's had been, and the sheep should have had a rest after the drive tc Enner Glynn. It was not wise tr drive three week old lambs from Mai tat to Bishopdale ; such young lambf ! got knocked down in the yards and | trampled on. A number of the 50 o> I 60 lambs — the older ones — would fine their mothers if turned out together. William Sowman, employed by the plaintiff, gave evidence, stating that the ' defendant had ridden roughly amongst the sheep. The constable told witness to catch some of the sheep. None of the sheep died on the way to Ennei Glynn nor on the way back to the Maitai. - Horace Edwards, the plaintiff, in his evidence stated that Constable Leckie ordered him to allow defendant to race the sheop. Prgviously the constable had requested witness to race the sheep and draft out those belonging to defendant, when witness replied he could not do so, as there were none of defendant's sheep in the flock. Defendant did not seek permission to go amongst the sheep., nor did either the defendant of the constable produce any authority. There was no difficulty in distinguishing between the two earmarks. Some of the lambs without mothers had die.d. Some of the sheep were worth 16s 4d or 16s 5d each, and ewes with lambs were worth 20s each. To the Magistrate : At no time during the proceedings did he remonstrate with the defendant. In the defendant's hearing witness said it was not fair to handle the sheep in the way they were being handled, and that if there ihere was harm done somebody would have to pay for it. Defendant at the time was about 20ft away, but he would not swear that Taylor heard the words. He considered that he had no right to interfere after the constable ordered the defendant tc catch the sheep. The 19 sheep died about two days afterwards, but he did give notice of the death of the sheep at the time, though Mr Maginnity may have given notice. At 6 o'clock the further hearing of the. caso was adjourned till the 30th iiist.