A SHEEP WORRYING CASE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVII, Issue 10591, 7 March 1913, Page 6

A SHEEP WORRYING CASE.

PLAINTIFF AWARDED DAMAGES. Th« case of J. B. Warriner (Mr Collias ) v. Henry Whale and John Bielski (Mr Lyon), a claim for £65 6b Gd for damages to and loss of sheep dne to alleged worrying T>y dogs, adjourned from last Court day, was resumed at Marton Court yesterday morning, before' Mr W. Kerr, S.M. Defendants admitted the worrying, but disputed the amount claimed.- Plaintiff, continuing his evidence, said he had offered his sheep at Bulls sale, but they were not sold. His rams were entered in the Romney Marsh Flock Book and some of the sheep were the progeny of the ram killed. There is not much difference between 4tooth and 6-tooth ewes for breeding purposes; both are in their prime. He had sold a 2-tooth ram to Bielski for 3 guineas. To Mr Collins; The slaughtermen’s strike had considerably affected the price of 'sheep. Ho, saw two dogs were running without a collar and one of them was Bielski’s. He thought Bielski was satisfied with the arrangements made with Whale. G. F. Ellis was the next witness. During 17 years he had been farming he had considerable experience I with Southdowns, Romneys [and Lincolns. He had stud sheep for 14 years and had been a member of the Romney Marsh Breeders’ Association for three years. He had judged Southdowns and Shropshire# at Christchurch Show and other Show*. Plaintiff’s sheep had no blood connection with his. Whale was at Warriner’s, and he saw three sheep —one ram and two ewes, dead. He saw others bitten which he considered would not’ recover. He valued the ram at from 8 to 10 guineas, the 4-tooth or G-tooth ewe at 4 guineas, and the f. m. ewe at 1)4 guineas The general damage he~ assessed at seven guineas. Whale discussed the values afterwards and he considered the assessment was too high hy'[aho»t £3. He considered it was mutually agreed by plaintiff andVWhale that if any other ewes died - they should be paid for on the basis of the previous valuation. He repeatedahis.proposal several times, and stated most decidedly that Whale understood the position. On Monday he was again requested by plaintiff, to value 10 sheep, six 6-tooth ewes he valued at 4gs each, four ewes at l)4gs., and a lamb at 1 guinea. Death most piebahly was caused by blood poisouiug as the reult of being bitten by dogs.

To Mr Lyon: This was the first assessment he had made of Romneys. For stud purposes ewea were in their prim® when 4-tooth or 6tooth. Warriner asked him to assess the damages, and Whale said he would abide by the valuation by witness. He gave wlmt he thought was a fair market value. He was not biased. Whale said ho was willing to pay 12 guineas for the two ewes and the ram, and general damages. T. R. Willis, with 16 years’ experience, said he had made a valuation of the flock. The ewes he valued at 15s 9d, aud the general damages he assessed at £5 9s. There was poor demand for Romneys at the present time. Evidence was also given as to prices by F. Stock and Jas, Wilson.

Plaintiff, who was then recalled by Mr Collins, said he visited Whale on Sunday, aud they had a haated argument. Whale said lie would get another person to make a valuation on Monday, and plaintiff agreed, hut said do not gee ah auctioneer, but an} 7 one else. Whale never went along on Monday nor did a valuer. Bielski went to 'him tojget his dog. To Mr Lyon: Whale on Sunday night said he would not pay any more till he got the owner of the other dog. To the Magistrate: lu the paddock Whale understood that he was to pay two-thirds of the cost of the damages, and Whale said he was agreeable to it.. Henry Whale, 'defendant, in reply to Mr Lyon, said lie went to Warriuer to get his dog. Told Ellis he would pay if ho pot a fair value on the sheep, hut would get another valuation made if his was excessive. He offered Warriner £l3, but this was at first refused, and then accepted. Nothing was said about the sheep that might die afterwards. The sheopaWero of 'inferior quality, and some were very poor and broken mouthed.' On Sunday Warriner informed him that nine more ewes wore dead, aud defendant said it he found the owner •of the other dog aud was paid in the same proportion as he had paid him lie would do well.

To Mr Collins: He thought when he gave the cheque he had paid for all the damage hi a dogs had done. John Bielski to Mr Lyon, said the sheep were in poor condition and looked as if they had not wintered well. He asked Warriuer if he would take £lO, but lie refused, as It was then in his solicitor’s hands. The more he talked to plaintiff the bigger the prices grew. (Laughter). To Mr Collins: Plaintiff made it clear that he was going on Ellis’ valuation. Mr Kerr, in summing up, said it was a difficult matter to follow experts. The only thing he could do was to make an equitable adjustment. It came hard on the defendants who were the victims of their dogs’ actions, but if they kept fsuch vicious animals it was at their own peril, and the law was cle-w that they wore liable. He, therefore, allowed* damages .as follow's: —Ram £8 Bs, 6 tooth ewe £3 3s, f.m. ewe £1 3, six 6-tooths £lB 18s, 4-tooth ewes £3 3, lamb £1 I, one 4-tooth £4 4, general damage £5 ss, advertising 4s; total £46 Bs. Defendant had paid into Court £33 Is 3d. The costs, Including witnesses expenses, amounted to £ Bs.