MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 20999, 4 February 1930, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CASE OF INTEREST TO DROVERS. In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr E. C. Lewy, S.M., a case of interest to drovers was heard when William John Anderson (Mr Eric Russell) proceeded against Albert George Weavers (Mr B. W. Hewat) for £l2, for the loss of a sheep-dog run over by defendant on tho North Road. In opening his case, Mr Russell said that the claim was for the value of a dog killed by a motor bus driven by defendant. The case was an important one from the viewpoint, of drovers. The accident had occurred on the North Road in the vicinity of Wallacetown, where large stock sales are regularly held. Plaintiff was driving a mob of 47 sheep in a southward direction, and defendant was driving a bus in an opposie direction. Another motor car was overtaking plaintiff. ■ Plaintiff would say that defendant had had an. unobstructed view of the dog. Plaintiff had held up his hand and hailed the oncoming bus. It was obvious to the driver of the bus that the dog was watching the sheep and was paying no attention to the oncoming bus. He submitted that defendant should have stop]>ed. It was his duty to have stopped. If this contention were wrong, drovers would be in an impossible position. Evidence along the lines indicated by counsel was given by William John Anderson, plaintiff. Mr Hewat said that he was entitled to a non-suit on the grounds that there was no evidence of negligence. It had been admitted by plaintiff that the dog was paying no attention to the bus. Defendant’s story coincided with that of plaintiff up to the point of approaching the sheep. Defendant had said that he was passed by three or four cars coming through the sheep. Defendant had not seen the dog till he had cleared the last car. Defendant was entitled to think that the dog had sufficient knowledge of traffic to notice the bus and to keep clear of it. The question was, was defendant negligent? Albert George Weavers said that at the time of the collision with the dog, he was driving his bus and he had a boy in the front passenger seat of the bus. When approaching the sheep he saw a number of cars pass through the flock. When he was two chains away, the last car came through the gap. He saw the dog coming from the east side and working west. He could not take any action. He estimated that at the time of striking the dog he was two bus lengths away from the sheep. He was under the impression that Anderson had spoken to the dog, but he must have spoken to defendant. After hitting the dog he alighted from the bus and told Anderson that he was sorry about the matter. Anderson admitted that defendant was careful, but asked who was to pay for the dog. Kenneth Mcßae, aged 13, of Makarewa, said that he was a passenger in the bus with Weavers. He thought that there were some cars coming through the sheep. He saw the dog a few yards in front of the bus. The dog was facing the drover. The bus was barely moving. The Magistrate gav.e judgment for plaintiff for £l2, Court costs £1 10/-, and solicitor's fee £2 12/-.