SHEEP WORRYING.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 31 May 1923, Page 7

SHEEP WORRYING.

DOG DESTROYED

OWNER LOSES DAMAGES CLAIM. Two settlers all the way from Maungati, with various supporters on eitfier side, came to Timerq yesterday to have judicially settled a little dispute about a dog, now deceased; and "the matter occupied the attention oi the Court for over an hour. The parties to the dispute were F. A. Sergeant (Mr Emsiie), plaintiff, and H. W’ebb (Mr. Campuefi), defendant, and the sum at stake a five pound note.

Mr Emsiie brieily stated the facts of the case according to liis client’s view, and called—

F. A. Sargent, farmer, Mnungati, who said that deiendant was a farmer in tlie vicinity of his own property. On May 2 plaintiff' had one of his dogs with him shitting a mob of sheep. He finished working about 11 a.m., and proceeded to his home, taking the dog with him. He did not chain the dog up until about an hour and a half after he went home. Defendant came to plaintiff’s place just after dinner, and he was very excited. He wanted to know where plaintiff’s dog was, and said that it had. been worrying his sheep. Plaintiff said he had just been working the dog, and after a lob of argument defendant shot the dog in witness’s presence and on his property. Defendant said plaintiff would have a lot of damage to pay for the. worrying of the sheep, but when plaintiff went to defendant’s place he could find no dead sheep, nor any traces of worrying. Later defendant seemed to see that lie had made a mistake, and said that he supposed plaintiff would want about £2O damages. Plaintiff said that he would only want £5 for the dog that was shot. Plaintiff bred the dog limiself, and kept him expressly for sheep. A dog that was kept for working sheep was very seldom known to worry them To Mr Campbell: He considered that defendant was under a delusion in regard to the worrying. Plaintiff told defendant that lie coukl shoot the dog if lie could prove it worried his sheep. Plaintiff admitted that his dog inignt have been in defendant’s paddock, but denied that it worried any sheep. This concluded plaintiff’s case. Mr Campbell said that the defence was that plaintiff had given permission to shoot the dog. . Harry Webb, farmer, Craigmoie Settlement, said that on the date m question his attention was drawn to a dog worrying his sheep It seemed from the distance that the dog was a black one, and lie got a hack and went out after the dog. He followed it Lo plaintiff’s yard. After some discussion plaintiff said that it he was satnffied the [log worried his sheep he could shoot it. He shot the clog at mice andwent away. Four hours later plaintiff i isited defendant’s place and could find trace of worrying, as the sheep had settled down by that tiino. Mrs Webb gave corroboiative evidence as to seeing a dog among the Sll F P j. Eglington said he went with defendant to plaintiff’s place, and corroborated deiendant s stoiy as to tfio shooting of the dog. • i : The Magistrate said that m ms opinion worrying did not a nays tearing and mangling sheep H coulu consist of harassing sheep b> a pursuing and barking at Ll, ‘j! , V i Yamb farmer knew that ones r could be injured by a st i. nigo ( m amongst the Hock burking and iunm..» about and chasing them. • the ""doc Uoni Ins' innu'to Ul plaintiff's, .and also dog. Judgment was for deiendant, wiUl