SHOOTING OF DOGS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22060, 16 September 1933, Page 5

SHOOTING OF DOGS

FARMER’S- SON INVOLVED DAMAGES AWARDED A claim for damages for the alleged shooting of. two spaniel dogs was heard in the Magistrate’s Court at Port Chalmers. yesterday when Rubin Stevenson, farmer, of Carey’s Bay, proceeded against John Alexander M'Kenzie, son of a farmer at Lean’s Rock, near Carey'sBay. Lengthy evidence was given for the plaintiff, and the magistrate (Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) gave, his verdict in favour, of the plaintiff. It was claimed that the dogs were shot on the afternoon’, of June 16 on the boundary of defendant’s property. Plaintiff valued one dog at £2, the other ,at £5, and four week-old pups, which had to be drowned because they could not be reared without the mother, at £1 10s each. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr L. R.' Simpson for the defendant. The plaintiff, Rubin SteVclisOn, said he was a labourer, and owned the dogs in question. The bitch was used for breeding purposes. On the afternoon of June 16 he found the male dog lying wounded about 50 yards from his property. The dog was bleeding and appeared to have been shot. It died shortly afterwards. He later discovered that the bitch was missing, and did not return. He searched for her six days later, and eventually found two empty cartridge shells near the boundary of defendant’s and the Port Chalmers Borough Council’s properties. He then made a search and found the body of the bitch, which had been thrown into.'.a bush on the ■ council’s property. He later interviewed the defendant and asked him why he had shot his dogs. The defendant denied that he had shot the dogs, and said he was absent from the farm bn June 16. Witness told the defendant that he must have been at home about 2.30 p.m., and M Kenzie replied that it was probably about that time when he returned to the farm. He had taken steps to verify the statement that the dogs had been killed by a shot gun. He had drowned the pups the day after the shooting because they were only a week old and could not live without the mother. Witness knew that the defendant had warned certain persons to keep away from his property. Witness had told the defendant that he had two witnesses who would testify regarding the actual shooting of the dogs. Frederick Morris Erdmnn eaid he had his dog at M'Kenzie’s farm, and he had authorised the shooting of the dog. The defendant brought out a gun, which was a breech ■ loading weapon, and the cartridges produced in court were of the same make as the one used to shoot his dog. _ Angus Munro, waterside worker, eaid he was working on a section at Reynoldstown on June 10, within 300 yards of the property owned by Mr M'Kenzie, sen. About 3 o’clock he heard the report of a gun,- and on looking round he saw the defendant about six yards from the boundary fence. The defendant was holding a gun in his hands, and .witness saw M'Kenzie, jun. j; ,. swing the. gun round about two minutes later, and there was another shot. About'three minutes later witness saw a black and white spaniel dog going down the gully. The dog was making a bound as though it was choking. Some days later he informed Mr Stevenson of what he had witnessed, and directed witness where to go, but did not see him pick up the dog. After the shots had been fired witness saw the defendant turn and! walk towards his father’s property. Gordon Austin, waterside worker, said he was working near Mr M'Kenzie’s property on June 10, and about 2.30 p.m. he heard two distinct gun-shots. The shots appeared to come from the direction of Mr M'Kenzie’s farm. He saw a dog coining from the direction of the boundary fence at Lean’s Rock, and the animal appeared to have been shot. It was about 20 minutes after he heard the second shot. The dog was limping and was-bleeding. As near as ho could estimate, two minutes had elapsed between the shots. Archibald Porteous, of Carey’s- Bay, said he accompanied Mr Stevenson to Lean’s Rock, and saw a dead dog, which appeared to have been shot, lying about 10 yards from the boundary fence. There was a discussion between Stevenson and M'Kenzie, jun., as to the time the latter returned home. Defendant told Stevenson that he returned about 3 p.m,, but when questioned further admitted that it might have been 2.30 In his evidence the defendant said he was a relief worker, and resided at Burns street, Port Chalmers. On the day of the alleged shooting he was working on another property about three miles away and returned to his father’s farm at Lean Rock about 3 o’clock.. He was not near the fence where the shooting took place, and he was not out of his father’s sight from the time he sat down to lunch. There was a shot-gun at his father’s house. Witness was taxed by the plaintiff with shoting the dogs, and lie did not remember telling Stevenson the exact time he had returned to his father’s farm. There had been complaints about dogs worrying sheep on his father’s property, and notices had been inserted in the newspapers stating that poison would he laid and dogs destroyed. He absolutely denied shooting the plaintiff’s dogs. Kenneth M'Kenzie, the defendant s father, said that his son went away with a horse and cart on the morning of June 16, and witness met him and helped him to unharness the horse about 3 p.m. that day. His son was within his sight all the afternoon, and he did not see the defendant with the shotgun. There was rabbit shooting on his property every day. Archibald Coleman, of Port Chalmers said he was the owner of a shotgun that was now in the possession of Kenneth M'Kenzie. The gun had been on the farm for some time, and he understood the weapon was used for rabbit shooting.

The magistrate said that he had every sympathy with a,farmer when his sheep were worried by dogs, but it was not a question of dogs worrying sheep in this case. The evidence clearly showed that the dogs were deliberately killed, and it was clear that the shooting was a deliberate act. The evidence given by the witness Munro for the plaintiff had been confirmed. Then plaintiff had found the empty cartridge cases, and the body of one of the dogs. In face of all the evidence as to the shooting, the defence was a denial of the charge. The evidence also clearly showed that defendant must have been in the vicinity when the shooting took place. The question of the time defendant returned to his fathers farm was a matter in which the defence had relied mostly to prove the defendant was not on the farm at the time the dogs were shot. He was satisfied that the shooting was done by M'Kenzie, jun., and judgment would be given for the full amount claimed, together with court costs (£1 12s), witnesses’ expenses (£2 16s), and solicitor’s fees (£2 12s).