AN UNUSUAL CLAIM

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18110, 9 June 1933, Page 5

AN UNUSUAL CLAIM

INJURY TO A DOG . i <.*■• ■ r! { :: ,£75 DAMAGES SOUGHT {Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. Alleging that the defendant’s stable boy had thrown a stone at his pedigree Airedale hitch, “Meg Merriless,” and thereby caused the premature whelping of unhealthy 'puppies, and, subsequently, the death of the mother, Captain F. 0. Graham, of Petone, claimed £75 damages from J. Lcadbettcr, a horse trainer and owner, also of Petone, at the Magistrace’s Court yesterday, before Mr E. Page, S.’M.

Counsel said the plaintiff, when returning from giving the bitch a walk, stopped to talk to friends. The animal ran ahead down a right-of-way, where the stable boy threw a stone, striking her on the flank. In consequence, she whelped prematurely, and five of 11 pups died. ' Soon after, the bitch also died. The pups had to be reared by hand, and in •consequence they were very sickly and prospective buyers refused to take them.

In evidence, the plaintiff said he bought the bitch in 1932. He did not 'pay money for her, but agreed to give the owner first choice of a dog from the first litter. The witness said he had agreed to give the second choice to the man -who lent him the dog to serve her. Cross-examined, the witness said four 'pups had 'been overlaid and smothered by the mother, one had died from exposure, two had been given away as he had promised, and one of the four remaining pups was a good specimen. It was submitted by counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff had not established that the death of the bitch or 'the depreciation of the value of the puppies was due to a wrongful act on the part of anybody. The evidence, he said, would show that the death of the bitch and the 'present condition of the puppies were du 1 to negl.. t, oii the part of the plaintiff. A further defence would be that no stone had ever been thrown by the boy at the bitch. The boy 'had never been in the employ of the defendant, and consequently the defendant could not be held liable, even if the boy had thrown a stone. The evidence would be that the boy found the animal worrying chickens in the defendant’s yard and lie had frightened it out.

Evidence on these lines was given, a granddaughter of the plaintiff saying she saw the boy thrown a stone. Another witness said the boy merely shooed the animal away.

The magistrate reserved decision