RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1726, 19 April 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka— Wednesday, April 18, 1888.

[Before D. Inwood and P. H. Barker, Esqs., J.P.’s. CIVIL CASES. William McOann v. S. Spillane— Claim £1 3s 6d.—Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and •oat*.

W. McCann v. A. Martin —Claim £1 2s 6d.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. John Crow v. W. Young—Claim £9. —Mr Aspinall for the plaintiff.— Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. John Crow v. W. Palmer-Claim £B, value of a dog. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hay for defendant. Mr Aspinall explained the case. On the 12th instant he said Mr Crow was working a chaff-cutting machine, and had occasion to go through a paddock owned by Messrs Swaney Bros., on which the defendant had the right to run his sheep. He was accompanied by a dog, and a boy was driving Mr Palmer’* sheep. The dog hearing the boy driving the sheep went up, but never did any harm, Mr Palmer followed the dog, and shot it in the presence of plaintiff, near where he was cutting the chaff. John Crow, farmer, residing near Temuka, was on the 12th April last passing by with the dog, when a boy named Timson was driving Mr Palmer’s sheep. The dog went to drive the sheep with him. Witness called him off, and the defendant coming up asked was that his £8 dog. Witness •aid “ Yes.” Defendant said “Do you want me to shoot him ? " Witness »aid “No.” The dog was lying a few yards away, and Mr Palmer «hot him down.

To Mr Hay ; When the dog went after the sheep he was about 10 chains away from me. There was a fence between me and the dog, but I had him in view all the time. The dog did not bite or worry the sheep. I am prepared to swear he did not. He only ran round them and mustered them H© was registered: at least the man who trained him said he was. I had him since he was a pup, and reared him myself. He was not dangerous among sheep, and was not dangerous to persons riding by on horses. He had been tied up because 1 had him only a short time back from the man that trained him. It was ten minutes after I got to the chaff-cutter when Mr Palmer came up and shot the dog. I had permission to cross Mr Swaney’s land. Mr Palmer is grazing his sheep on Mr Swaney’s land. I knew that it was advertised that trespassers would be prosecuted for going on the land, but I had permission. George McKay, stonemason, was at the chaffcutter. The dog was lying down a few yards from the chaffcutter when Mr Palmer came up and shot him, and said he would chance the consequences. Francis Drake, laborer, said he was in the employment of Mr Crow. Took a dog for him to Charley Kerr to train. It was the dog that was shot.

Charles Kerr stated that he was in the employment of Mr Grant. Had the dog to break in, and it was thoroughly broken. It showed no propensity to worry sheep. It was a very useful dog, and was worth £7 or £8 to anyone who wanted him. Worked him for five months. To Mr Hay: Mr Crow asked me if ; the dog was worth £5, and I said he ought to be. I gave Crow an old collar with the dog, but I did not register him. Peter Swaney, farmer, residing at Temuka, said Mr Crow had permission to cross his paddocks. To Mr Hay: I authorised Mr Palmer to advertise that trespassers on the land would be prosecuted. This completed the plaintiff’s case, and Mr Hay, in opening for the defence, said he relied on sections 17 and 18 of the “ Dog Registration Act ” for the defence. These clauses gave power to anyone to destroy dogs found worrying sheep, etc., and it would be proved that the dog had been worrying Mr Palmer’s sheep. He then referred to clause 13, as regards the power given to shoot unregistered dogs, and called the following evidence

Thomas Palmer: I am a farmer, and have the grazing of Swaney’s land. I have given notice in the Tbmitka Lbadbe that trespassers would be prosecuted. I have sheep on Swaney’s land. On the 12th I saw Mr Crow running towards the dog, I and another were eight or nine chains away, and the hoy was with the sheep. The dog was worrying the sheep. The dog could not be trusted among sheep. Mr Crow was a good distance away. A paddock of 15 acres was between him and the dog, and he could not see the dog at all times, Before I got up he called the dog off and gave him a good kicking and he went to the chaffcutter. He was within about 13 yards of me, but instead of apologising he cleared out, in fact, he appeared to run. Witness went after him to the chaffcutter and shot the dog. The boy said he was tearing the sheep. To Mr Aspinall; When I was within 12 yards of Crow he had the dog in his hands kicking him. I had no chance of shooting the dog in the act. There was a sheep amongst the flock which had cost 28 guineas, Hone

of the sheep were killed. I did not ex imine the sheep to see what injury they had sustained. The boy Timson ha Ino dog working the sheep. There w-g a 15 acre paddock between Crow a; .1 the sheep. When I went to the ch vffcutter, I asked him was that hi» i j dog, because I was surprised at the g working as he had done. John Timson: Was driving the s’. ;ep bn the 12th, when the dog came a;i.l bit several of them, and knocked s me of them over. Tried to get him o.T them, but could not until Mr Crow cr. '.led him off. The dog bit three or f.) ir of them. He was not mustering, hu was worrying them. Only one w.is upset. Mr Crow was up on top of the downs. Prom the time the dog started until Mr Crow called him was about 10 minutes.

To Mr Aspinall: I had no dog. When I said “ go on ” to the dog ho went away and came back again. N ever saw a proper sheep dog throw or bite a sheep. Do not know whether the sheep bled. They mixed with the mob. Mr Crow was trying to get the dog to go with him all the time.

Charles Timson, rabbiter: Saw the dog amongst the sheep and it seemed to him at a distance of 8 or 9 chains that the dog was worrying the sheep. The last witness was trying to drive the dog away. To Mr Aspinall: Mr Crow came into the paddock where the dog was worrying the sheep. Neither Mr Palmer nor myself looked at the sheep at the time.

George Levons said that on the 12th inst. he met Mr Crow with the dog, and it went at his horse. Had to pull up to prevent the dog from getting at his horse’s heels. Thomas Palmer, recalled: Had the right to graze over all Messrs Swaney Bros. land. The sheep were not worried in the paddock where the dog was shot* The place where the dog was shot was a part of the land on which the witness had a right to graze his sheep. Mr Hay addressed the Court, and said Mr Palmer’s act was perfectly legal. He quoted again sections 17 and 18 of the “ Dog [Registration Act” in support of his contention, and said he relied on them.

Mr Aspinall held that Mr Hay’s reading of the law was erroneous, and read an extract from “ Addison on Torts ” to show that unless the dog was shot while it was chasing the sheep it could not be shot afterwards. The remedy then was an action for damages. He then reviewed the evidence, and said Mr Palmer never claimed any damages or made any complaint. Mr Hay said Mr Aspinall was trying to throw dust in the eyes of the Court. He quoted “ Addison on Torts,” which was a common law right in the absence of statutory law. If the “Dog Eegistrakion Act ” had not been passed this would have been the law, but he submitted that the language of sections 17 and 18 of that Act gave defendant power to follow the dog. The Court said they did not wish it to be laid down as a precedent that a person had a right to follow a dog and shoot it, but Mr Palmer had not gone off the land on which the dog had been worrying the sheep, and cons ' sequently they would give judgment for defendant without costs. Mr Aspinall gave notice of appeal. C. Story v. N. Marquis.—Claim £1 8s 6d. —Judgment summons.— Ordered to pay at the rate of 10s per month, or in default 14 days’ imprisonment. The Court then rose. GERALDINE.

Wednesday, Apeil 18th, 1888. [Before Captain Wraj, R.M.] TJNEEGISTEEID DOGS. J. D. Gore, for haring an nnregistered dog in his possession, was fined lOs and costs. CIVIL CASES. R. H. Pearpoint v. Thos. Nelan— Claim £4 3a 7d. —£4 was paid into Court, and judgment was given for the remaining 3s 7d and costs. C, E. Sherratt v. M. E. Heatley.— Judgment by default with costs. J. Boughton y. T. Eelan—Claim £4.—-This amount was paid into Court, and judgment by default was given for the costs. Same v. Cooke—Claim £3l2s. £2 of this paid into Court, and judgment by default was given for the balance with costs. ■ D. Mcllraith v. T. Baiter—Claim £9.— Judgment summons.— Defendant was ordered to pay the amount in three equal instalments, the first payment to be made in a month, or in default 14 days’ imprisonment. . N. Dunlop v. H.McMaster—Claim £4 18s 2d—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs, Then Court then adjourned.