TRESPASS OF RAMS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3315, 26 September 1917, Page 9

TRESPASS OF RAMS.

THE KNAPDALE OASE. DAMAGES AWARDED. The Mataura. Ensign states that Mr H. A. Young, S.M., gave hia reserved judtf* nient in the oase of the Public Truste&t as administrator in. the estate of the latJ Hon. Dr R. M'Nab (Mr PoppelweU) vy Raird Bros., Knapd'ale (Mr White), 4 claim for the sum of £127 as damages foy trespass of a ram or rams belonging ti the defendants upon the lands and arnonjf the stud flock of the plaintiff. The magi* trate said that in 1916 Dr M'Nab and the defendants occupied adjoining farms as Knapdale, near Gore. In February, 1916, Dr M'Nab's manager, Mr Reid. placed 99 Romnoy Marsh owes and a Border Leicester wether in a paddook adjoining defendant*' farm-. At_ the same time defendants had ia an adjoining' paddock on their farm severs} Border Leicoster rams. Mr Reid says tha* early in March ho found one of defendants rams among tho Romney Marsh ewes, that he hunted it back into defendants' farm, and asked the defendants to keep their rams in. On March 21 he caused the i ewes and wether to bo removed to another i paddook. On April 2 he again found one of defendants' rams amongr the ewes. On April 10 he placed hie Romney Marsh ram* with the ewes. Sixty-three lambs to a Border Leicester ram were dropped. One arrived on July 30 and one on August 6. There were eight or more on August I+, and £7 more on August 22, the t>alanoe lof 17 being seen on August 25. No other j oroasbreds were dropped. On September 4 j the purebred lamba commenced to arrive. ! The plaintiff claims £1 as genoral damages and £126 as special damages, being the , difference in value of 63 lambs begotten j by defendants' ram or rams and the value j if they had been bred by plaintiff's Rom- ! ney Marsh stud rams. The defendants do j hot deny that one of their rams trespassed ' about the end of; February. They state, I however, that, after Mr Reid told then* I that a ram' had trespassed, they put ewes ] in the paddook where the rams were, ro>I moving' the rams to an adjoining paddock. i They state also that they had only six : rams, that one or other of them daily j inspected their ewes up to March 29, thai) in doing so they passed through the pad-dock-to which the rams had been removed, counted them, and found all wers there. On March 29 they removed the ewes, ana from that date did not see the rams. They ! admit the trespass of the ram on April Z, ! and contend that it could have been re* 1 sponsible only for 17 lambs. I am 6atisj j fled on the evidence that one of defendants 1 ram's trespassed about the end of February. It is common cause fchat the period of gestation is, roughly, 160 days, and that lambs could arrive about seven days before ior after the due date. This ram could ' then have been responsible for the lambs j which arrived on July 30 and August 6. ! It is oontended on behalf of the plaintiff ! that this ram must have returned immedi» i ately after beipg put out. and that it must) i have remained with plaintiff's ewes until I April 2. Border Leicester ramg were nob ! kept on plaintiff's property, but several of j his neighbours kept them >rhe Borrmey Marsh ewes were not inspected from the date of the first trespass until April 2, \ except when they were removed on March 21. The paddock to which they were^re- | moved was about three-quarters of a mil<» j away and there is a hill between the two | paddocks. If the ram was not removed I with tho ewes, it must have got over ojf i through five very substantial fences, or j it must have travelled two miles by road and got over or through two substantial ! fences. The stockman who removed the 1 sheep savs that ho did not know the num* ' ber of sheep he had to remove, but when I removing them he roughly counted lpL I When counting the sheep ho did not notioS j the class of sheep, and could not say whether or not there were two Border I Leicesters amontr them. Mr Reid, who j has had considerable experience among I sheep, says that when ho saw the ram on April 2 he took it to be the same ran? ! that he had previously turned out, that i the earliest lambs were of the same breed' ! ing as the later crossbreds, and that the I lambs could only have arrived the way they did if the ram was with the ewes j for some time. The Magistrate briefly summarised the I evidence of Messrs William Johnston and j R. J. Anderson as to the type, and also j that of t-ne Messrs Baird, and went on to j say: "On the evidence the only conclusion I ca<n come to i>? that the rr.m re- | moved by Mr Reid about the end of i February immediately returned to the Romj noy Marsh ewes, and remained with them j until April 2. It is very likely that when | defendants shifted then; rams the ram_ in | question '\va«i back agafn among- plaintiff's . owes Tho defondnnts mivt have been mis- ! taken either ns to the number cj rams they ! owned when they shifted those in the pnddock adjoining plaintiffs farm or as. to the number remaining in the paddock to which thev were shifted."

The B.M. Pa-id it vraa nnt an e>asy matter to assess tho amount of the damages sustained by the plaintiff. He reviewed the evidence on this point of Messrs Roid, Johnston, Anderson. Fletcher, and Law* lor, and said: " Tho last two witnesses were, awure that two seasons before the Romney Marsh ewes had been crossed by a Border Leioester ram, and they took; fchia faot into consideration whon arriving

at their estimates. It is clear from the evidence and from the text-books on heredity that the belief that offspring sometimes resemble not so much the father, but an earlier mate of tho mother is widespread among - experienced breeders. The result, hdwever, of scientific investigation into cases submitted is that the occurrence of telegony has not been proved. In arriving at tho value of the purebred lambs consideration should, I think, bo given to this widespread belief in telegony. On the whole, I think that a reasonable sum to allow for tho loss sustained by reason of the trespass is £1 per lamb. Judgment will therefore bo entered for the plaintiff for £63 and cost'i (court costs £2 7s, witnesses' expenses £3 lis Id, and counsel £5 45)."