A DOG’S “FOUL” DEED

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 9900, 20 February 1918, Page 2

A DOG’S “FOUL” DEED

CAUSES A COURT SQUABBLE

'KILL MY FOWLS AND I'LL KILL YOUR, DOG.”

Disaster fell upon some fowls which weiia feeding peacefully on the roadway at Island Bay recently. A hungry dog appeared on the scene and soon feathers were flying and wild cackling rent this air. A'bove < all could be .heard joyful yelps from the sportive dog. A few days later the avenging .hand of fife infuriated owner of the fowls fell on the dog, so .that that animal peacefully went to rest wheilo it had sent the fowls some days before. The sorrowing owners of the fowls and the dog appeared before .Mr W. G. Kiddoll, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterdev, each making a claim< against the other for the injuries done. James Kennedy, the owner of the deceased dog. sued 111-nry Dennison, his neighbour for Al 5, being the value of the dog killed by him. and Dennison counter-claimed for A2. representing the value of the slaughtered fowls. Kennedy said his dog was a pedigree sjtud and show animal. On the day of the trouble he had ■ left it securely chained up, but returned to find the animal had been let loose. Dennison ■informed him of the damage done to his fowls and added that until the fowls were paid for the dog would 'be kept shut up in hie (Dennison’s) place, Kennedy replied that if it was proved that hiis dog had killed the fowls he would be willing to pay for, the damage. Four days later when he asked for his dog he found that it was ho more. Dennison had destroyed it. In his evidence plaintiff said the dog had been registered, but on the morning of the trouble was not wearing its col* lar.

Counsel for . defendant, Mr H. F. O’Leary, submitted that this fact alone entitled defendant to destroy the dog when he found it on his property. Plaintiff fu'rther admitted that ho bad said to Dennison ; "If you catch my dog killing vour fowls you may kill it.” Mr W. G. Riddell. S,M.. who heard the Case, found that plaintiff was entitled to A 9 eomjvejisation for the loss of the dog along with costs A 3 14;. On the counterclaim I>cnnison would be awarded the full amount claimed, with costs Al Gs. Mr R. H. Webb appeared for plaintiff.