SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1766, 21 July 1888, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Chriewohubch, Thursday, July 19. IN BANCO. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Ward.) CROW V. PALMER. This was a case on appeal from the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Temuka. Mr Wilding appeared for the appellant, and Mr Hay for the respondent. The.notice of motion set forth that on April 12, 1888, Grow, the appellant, was engaged in erecting a threshing machine ou land leased from Swaney Bros., at Temuka, on which the respondent was grazing sheep. Appellant was accompanied by a dog, which worried soma of these sheep. About tea minutes afterwards respondent came up and after some altercation shot the dog, which was lying down near its master. Appellant brought an action to recover £5 for the value of the dog, in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Temuka. The presiding Justices gave judgment for the defendant, without costs, on the ground that Palmer was justified in shooting the dog under Sections 13 and IT of the “The Dog Registration Act, 1880,” inasmuch as the shooting took place so shortly after the worrying that the two occurrences might be looked upon as parts of one and the same transaction.

Mr Wilding argued that Section 17 did not justify the respondent in shooting the dog, as sufficient time had elapsed since the worrying to justify the contention that the two occurrences were not parts of the same transaction; also, that as respondent was not the owner of the land, ho was not justified, under Section 13, io shooting the dog. la support of his contention under Section 17, he cited the decision of Chief Justice Prendergast, in Webber v, Fenimore, p. 150, Ollivier, Bell and Fitzgerald’s Reports. Mr Hay submitted (bat as the respondent hud seen the dog at large biting and attacking the sheep, and had not desisted from the pursuit of the dog when he shot it, he was justified in so doing under Section 17. He submitted that the dog was unregistered, that it was simply a au'sanca on the land, and that as the Swaneys had givea the respondeat authority to put au advertisement io a newspaper* io the effect that trespassers with dog and gun ou the land would be prosecuted, the respondent was virtually ilia agent of the Swaneys, He also submitied ihit tire respondent was to be considered as the agent of tne Swaneys to do 11 things neoesa ry to protect his sheep, us he had leased the right of depasturing the sheep from them. Mr Wilding submitted that there was no agency implied, as the respoapent, in shooliug the dog, was acting, not for the Swaneys, but for hirns-IE.

His Honor said that, it seemed (4 him chat unless the destruc ioa of the dog was to take place at the time when it was worrying the sheep there was no limit to thu time within which it might be destroyed. Ho would lull that as the dog had ceased from attacking or cousiog the sheep, die respondent had no right to shoot it. He could not see, either, that the respondeat was justified in shooting dog as the agent of Swaneys. The appeal would be upheld. Judgment would be given For appellant for £5, the amount of the cliim, with c tats of the appeal,— Lyttelton Times.