DRRYING

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16939, 1 May 1929, Page 4

DRRYING

Pawaeded Bs'lTO PAY Ht>"g to H C", ■ 11. Hf'uuii BTim mm A\ Morrison Miming £c9 5s tor damage aito ins Hock of curs by, tW defendants' dogs. The 'plaintiff 'alleged that on September £6 tjie defendants' dogs worried a Hock of liis sheep held in a paddock at Awapuni, causing the death of one lamb and two ewes, and injury and damage to others in the flock. Mr. J. S. Wauchop appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. IS, V. Beaufoy tor both defendants. Evidence for the defence was given by Robert Morrison, father of one of the defendants. Mrs. Caroline Morrison stated that Langford called at their house at about 4.20 p.m. in an excited condition and asked if a brown and white dog belonged to them, and witness told him they had no dog answering to that description. Langford then galloped away after the dogs, which witness did not see. Mrs. Dorothy Morrison, wife of uno of the defendants, stated that Langford came to her front door in a very angry state at about 4.30. The dog was lying by the door, and Langford said it had been worrying his sheep and that it would have to be shot. Witness told him it was a valuable dog, and that they were getting it ready for the show, and did not want it shot. The dog was not dirty, and there were no signs on it that it had been worrying sheep. Later Langford came to demand the dog, but witness refused to give it. That afternoon the clog was not out of her sight for more than half an hour. Mrs. Annie G. Lowe, wife of the defendant Lowe, stated that Langford called at their house and complained about the worrying, but told witness that no damage had been' done, and that mi man had gone down to sec if there was any damage. This man came back Jater and said there was no damage.

The defendant Morrison staled that when lie returned home he examined the dog for traces of blood, but failed to see anything wrong with him except that he was wet about the legs; that was only to be expected, as .it had been raining. Witness went to see Langford, and the plaintiff said they were lucky, as there was no damage and none of the sheep had been killed. Ho suggested that witness should shoot the dog, but witness explained that it was a valuable collie and had not previously been amongst sheep. Ten minutes later witness saw Langford again, and the plaintiff again said no damage had been done. The defendant Lowe stated that Langford called at his house and asked if the fox terrier belonged to him. Witness replied 1 in the affirmative, and asked if it had done any damage. Plaintiff said he did not know, but had sent a man down to look. When the man returned he said no damage at all had been done, arid Langford told witness he was lucky. Witness agreed to destroy the dog, but Langford said ho would destroy it, and witness agreed to this and the plaintiff's man took it away. Witness took Langford's word for it that it was his dog that had been worrying the sheep. Langford saw witness after the summons was issued, and asked the meaning of the summons. Langford said : "I don't want you, Bert; I want Morrison's dog." He told witness that if Morrison destroyed his dog he would discontinue the action.

The magistrate said he was satisfied from the evidence that the plaintiff's sheep had been damaged by the defendants' dogs; the evidence was contradictory, but he had come, to that conclusion. As to the amount claimed there was no doubt (that one lamb and two ewes had died, and the amount claimed for them, £4 ss, was not excessive, and would be allowed. The amount claimed, £5, in respect of the damage to the other 10 lambs Was reasonable, and would also be allowed. He was not satisfied, however, that there was any damage to the remaining lambs in the flock; there might have been slight damage to the ewes, and he thought £5 would meet the case under that head. Judgment, therefore, would be for the plaintiff for £l4 5s and costs.