SHEEP-WORRYING CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20491, 17 February 1930, Page 12

SHEEP-WORRYING CASE.

CLAIM AGAINST NEIGHBOURS

COURT NON-SUITS FARMER.

IDENTITY OF DOG RESPONSIBLE.

[BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] RAGLAN, Saturday.

Judgment of interest to sheepfarmers was given by Mr. F. W. Platts, S.M., in a case in which James Clemett, farmer, Te Akau, sued Thomas Parker and Stanley Parker for £3l 4s for sheep allegedly worried by dogs. Mr. Noel Johnson, for plaintiff, said four farms adjacent to, each other at Te Akau were occupied respectively by plaintiff, Thomas Parker, and Messrs. MacDougall and Mahood; It was admitted that Thomas Parker ownod one farm and his son Stanley Parker worked on it. Last August Stanley Parker approached Mr. Arthur Wapp regarding a dog for mustering. Wapp said he had,a blue dog which Parker could try. If he found it of use he could pay for it, othorwiso ho could destroy it.

In September Mahood saw two dogs worrying sheep. The dogs went toward MacDougall's and Clemett's properties. Wapp j,also saw two dogs_ worrying sheep on MacDougall's farm. He shot both dogs, one of which was the blue dog he had previously l;anded to Stanley Parker. The othor dog was supposed to belong to a Maori.

Not Seen on Property. Neither dog was actually seen on Clemett's place. Circumstantial evidence, however, would show that sheep were worried by these dogs. Since the shooting of the dogs no worrying had occurred in the district.

Plaintiff on September 27 heard of a neighbour's sheep being worried. On September 28 he found sheep had been worried on his own place, near MacDougall's boundary. He had seen sheep which had also been worried on MacDougall's property in a paddock adjacent to his own. There was wool everywhere in the paddock. He found carcases of sheep in thn swamp and at tho side of it. Ho took a tally of the sheep a few clays later. He had put 341 sheep into the paddock about two months previously, and tho fence was good.

When mustered only 321 sheep were found alive. Seven were found dead through worrying. In the 321 there were six hoggets which had been damaged, and of these six only three survived. He valued the hoggets at 28s each.

Saw Two Dead Dogs. Cross-examined witness said he kept dogs himself. He kept them chained up, but they were not always on the chain. He was at MacDougall's place on September 30 and saw two dead dogs which ho felt sure were the dogs which had worried his sheep. It was possible that dogs from the Itonga settlement had done the worrying.

Arthur Tarbat Clemett, father of plaintiff, corroborated his son's evidence regarding the mustering of the sheep. He said he had no personal knowledge of which dogs had worried tho sheep, Arthur Wapp, farmer, Te Akau, said he shot two dogs on September 28. One a black dog, was actually worrying sheep. The blue dog was running round barking. He recognised the blue dog as the one he had given Stanley Parker. Ho telephoned Thomas • Parker telling him he had destroyed the dog. Parker said he did not know his son had- a dog. Witness said he dealt entirely with Stanley Parker regarding the dog. Ho did not mention Thomas Parker in the matter. He had not noticed any inclination on the part of the dog to worry sheep. It was afraid of sheep and would run. away from them.

Status of Junior Defendant.

Mr. W. F. Johns, for the defence, applied for a non-suit. He said Thomas Parker was not aware the dog was in existence. He had never seen or heard of it. Stanley Parker's, duties were only those of a servant or labourer. He had no authority to buy or sell sheep or any animal. He was only 18 yeais of age". If he brought a dog to the farm the act was quite outside his duties and not in the interest of his employer. He quoted to show that in such a case an employer could not be held responsible for the acts of his employee. Mr. Johnson said it was acknowledged that there was no direct proof. It. .was, however, reasonable to suppose, if the dogs kjlled sheep 100 yds. away, that plaintiff's sheep wore kjlled by the same flogs. A person working on a* farm must have a certain amount of authority regarding stock. Presumably dogs were necessary and he could get one if required. The magistrate said that plaintiff saw no dogs, but his neighbour had sheep worried by dogs, wjiich were shot, and one of the dogs belonged to Stanley Parker. No one saw. the dog on plaintiff's property. The Court was asked to conclude that the same dogs did the damage on plaintiff's farm. Since this affair there had been other instances of worrying, including one on Clemett's own property. While it might be possible that the dogs did the worrying, the Court could not give judgment, even where the case was highly probable. There was danger in assuming fact from circumstances. Thero would be a noj-i-suit on the point that there was no evidence that f,ho dog did the damage. Security for apocal was fixed at £lO 10s.