AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

Waikato Argus, Volume XXI, Issue 3258, 16 August 1906, Page 4

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

An important judgment was given by the Wellington Stipendiary Magistrate in the case of Jamison v. Hancox, a claim for £ l2, the value of 16 prize chickens, alleged to have been killed by the defendant’s dogs. The evidence, said his Worship, disclosed no negligence on the part of the defendant, and the simple question was, could the plaintiff recover under the circumstances? To him the law seemed clear that the defendant was not liable. The common usage allowed a dog a certain amount of liberty, and where a dog committed an unauthorised trespass, such as jumping off the road into a field without its master’s consent, the owner was not liable. As a general rule the owner of the dog was not liable for any damage done by it on land unless trespassed by his consent or on his incitement, or, knowing its propensities, be suffered it to ho at large. In the present case there was no proof of the mischievous nature of the two dogs, nor was there any proof of negliglence of the owner. The fowls were running about in a property enclosed by a wire fence, and through which dogs could easily enter. So far as the defendant was concerned, the occurrence was involuntary, and no action lay against him in respect thereof for a trespass or for any breach of duty. Judgment would be for defendant, with costs, On the application of counsel for plaintiff, leave was given to appeal.

Another piece of evidence in the case against the kea for sheep-killing was on view in a Timaru saddler’s window the other day, in the form of a sheepskin with a large perforation in the back, close behind the shoulder. The skin came from Mr Burnett’s Mount Cook station and Mr Burnett states that the perforation was made by a kea, which attacked the sheep and killed it by pecking at its vital parts. A well known Socialist leader and speaker made a frank confession at a men’s meeting in Christchurbh the other nightl’m between the devil and the deep blue sea; the Christians won’t,;have me and the Socialists think I’m a Christian, ” ho declared. He failed to enlighten the laughing audience as to which body represented the deep blue sea, although the chairman was anxious for information.

A curious incident occurred recently in the back blocks where they play an annual game of football, one district versus another. It appears the referee ordered a player off the field because he kicked too hard at the “ pigskin bag of wind.” On being remonstrated with at the end of the game the said “ whistler ” explained: only ball in the district, and I weren’t going to have it busted before the game ended.” Mr A. L. Mayhew* in “ Notes and Queries,” has an interesting note on the word “Duma. ” It is, it seems, one of those culture-terras which Russia has borrowed from her Scandinavian neighbours. Yigfusson tel a in his dictionary that doma was an important term in Icelandic law, meaning a court of judgment, the body of judges, the court of law. It was in this sense that the word was introduced, with other Swedish words, into Russia, and hence the present political meaning of the Russian ‘•Duma”—namely, an assembly of councillors, met to pronounce their doom, or judgment—a far finer term, in Mr Mayhew’s opinion, than our word “ Parliament,” a talking shop.