SHEEP WORRYING CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6038, 21 September 1887, Page 3

SHEEP WORRYING CASE.

TMs Day.

At the Kesident Magistrate's Court this morning, before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M., I?. Guinness, and H. J. Hall, Escis., Jauies Rogers, farmer, sued T. Sheene'en f or the sum of £9, for damage caused by defendant's dog entering upon plaintiff's land at Templeton, on or about August 22 last, and killing and worrying certain ewes and lamba, the property of the plaintiff. Mr Thomas for the plaintiff j Mr Deacon for the defendant.

James Eogers, the plaintiff, was examined. He lived at Templeton. On August 22 last he had 110 ewes lambiug . Some of the lambs were a month old. He saw defendant's dog worrying the lambs. Witness had his own dog with him at the time. He afterwards caught defendant's dog, which was besmeared with" blood. Pound that twenty of tho lambs had been killed. The rest had since been out of condition. The lambs destroyed would have been worth 10s each for the market. Some of the ewes had since slipped their lambs. The damage done to his flock by defendant's dog amounted to more fcaaa iB9. Two or three days after, witness, with Mr Kissell, took the dog to Mr Sheneen, who said that witness and Mr Kissel] could settle the dispute as they liked. Witness did not destroy the dog because it was a valuable one, and he thought that Sheneen might sue him for damages. It was a fox terrier dog. Cross-examined by Mr Deacon: Witness saw defendant's dog chasing the lamba about. No other dog was about at the time.

Kissell, hotel-keeper at Teinpleton : Knew Sheneen'adog. On May 1G Sheueen wa3'at Mb place with doge. After Sheneen left witness noticed a dog about the place. The dog was not left at witness' request. Saw defendant about ton ■ days after in Christchurch, and told him about the dog. Dafendant said that he would get the dog some time. Witness asked him to give it to him for his children, who had taken a liking for it. Defendant said that he valued the dog at .£lO, and would not erive ib away. Remembered liogers bringing the dog tp his house. There was.blood

about the dog's body. Went back with Rogers, aud saw a lot of dead lambs about the place.

Mr Deacon, for the defence, did not call any witnesses, but submitted that the other dogs mighb have done the damage to plaintiff's lambs. The defendant's dog might have gone amongst the dead sheep, and so got some blood on its body. Ho alßo submitted that the lambs were worth at the time not more than from 8s to ss, and that the plaintiff could not claim more. Mr Deacon also argued that the owner of tho dog, according to meaning of the Act of ISBO was not the defendant but Mr Kiasell, in whose possession the dog was at the time of the damage being done. The dog was out of the control of Mr Sheneen. Mr Thomas, whilst thinking that Mr Kissell might be made responsible, contended that the defendant was tho true owner, aud as such was liable for damages. Mr Beetham found that the dog was only temporarily in the charge of Mr Kissell, at the defendant's request. The owner of the dog was the defendant. In reference to the damage done, Mr Beetham h«ld that the subsequent value of the lambs should be taken in a case of that kind. Judgment for the plaintiff for M and costs.