PALMERSTON COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19907, 29 September 1926, Page 12

PALMERSTON COURT.

DEATH OF A HORSE. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Alleging that the defendant’s dog, in rushing out on to the roadway and barking had caused the death of his horse, John M’Cabe proceeded against Robert Cuttle in the Magistrate’s Court at Palmerston yesterday, claiming £25 damages, the value of the animal. Mr W. Arkle appeared for the plaintiff and Mr C. J. Payne for the defendant. Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., woe on the bench. William Francis M’Cabe, brother of the plaintiff, said he was riding the horse in question past the defendant’s house, when a dog rushed out and barked at the horse, so frightening it that it bolted for 135yds and then fell dead. The horse had shown no signs of weakness. His brother valued it at about £25. Robert Cuttle, stock agent, said he had gone to see the man who had been riding the horse at the time, and at that interview he had heard no suggestion that the dog was to blame for the horse’s death. In fact, William M’Cabe had said he did not blame the dog. Witness was of the opinion that the horse must have had a weak heart. Thomas Burgess Bowkett, a farmer of Dunback, who was an eye-witness of the incident, said he wae driving his car along the road past defendant’s house and noticed plaintiff's horse ahead of him. He was particularly struck by the animal's gait. Covering the last two chains before the fall the animal appeared to be reeling, and it eventually fell to the ground. He saw no sign of a dog anywhere, and when he picked M’Cabe up the rider made no mention of the horse having been frightened by a dog. Ho was of the opinion that the fall was due to weakness, probably an affected heart. Asked what ho considered to be the value of the horse he said ho would not like to say, but a horse 17 or 18 years of ago was not worth a great deaf-—not £25. The Magistrate said it must be remembered that it was the legal obligation of the plaintiff to prove negligence. The defendant did not have to disprove it. The evidence as to negligence was supplied by plainfiiTe brother who rode the horse. He was not satisfied that the dog had frightened the horse, but even had this been proved it would not prove that the death was duo to the dog’s barking. The parties concerned had met frequently, and yet the proceedings had been greatly delayed, making it impossible for tne question of the horse’s possible weakness to be investigated. Judgment would be given for the defendant with costs, solicitor's fee £2 2s, and court costs £1 Is.