SHEEP WORRYING

Waipa Post, Volume 45, Issue 3214, 9 August 1932, Page 5

SHEEP WORRYING

AN OHAUPO ROAD CASE

NEIGHBOURS AT VARIANCE

A claim for £6 10s occupied the attention of Mr F. H. Levien a!c Te Awamutu Magistrate’s Court on Monday. Plaintiff was Thomas G. Gr gg, and defendant his neighbour at Ngaroto. William J. Thompson. The claim was based on alleged damage to sheep on two occasions—lsth August, 1931, and a few days later. There was a different dog each time, but both were well known to plaintiff as belonging to Thompson. One of the dogs was shot later. On the second occasion the dog was caught and taken to Thompson’s. Defendant was away from home on each occasion. Thomas George Gr'gg, plaintiff, said he was a farmer on the Ohaupo Road and defendant was a neighbour. On 15th August plaintiff was working in his garden when he heard a commotion among the sheep He ran to the paddock and found a black and white dog had penned the sheep in a corner, and part of a lamb that the dog had been eating was recovered. He took the remains to Thompson’s as evidence, and asked Miss Thompson to get her father to come to see witness when he returned home. Thompson did riot come. Next day w'tness’ son went round the sheep as usual, and found other animals dead. Two ewes and four lambs had been killed the first day, and two other ewes were badly bitten. The next day his son found four ewes in trouble through being d sturbed; their lambs were dead. The dog he saw in the paddock was Thompson’s black and white dog Micky. A week later he found Thompson’s other dog Rover had penned his sheep in a comer. He caught Rover and took it to Thompson’s, where he told defendant’s daughter of the incident, and left a message for her father to come to see him. Thompson did not come. Next day witness’ son went round the flock and found two dead lambs and two ewes in trouble. Witness and his son went to Thompson’s store about the damage caused, but as defendant was busy he said he would go into the matter and let him know his decision. As no reply came witness sent an account, but still there was no response; so he went to h:s solicitor. He knew the dogs well, and had seen Thompson using them in the work of drafting cattle. To counsel for defendant: He was working in the garden at his home between 2.30 and 3 p.m. on 15th August. The sheep were in the next paddock and when he heard- the noise he ran to the fence and looked through the hedge. The dog was only about half a chain away, eating part of a lamb. His son Eric arrived a couple of mmutes later, and told him to folJow the dog home. Eric departed for Thompson’s, and witness went to the sheep. Witness had four dogs—one cattle dog and three fox terriers. The latter never disturbed the sheep. He had never seen them in Ferguson’s paddock. The cattle dog was run over by a car, and was not shot. He knew of no other dogs being among his sheep, or had he told anyone about White’s dog and his sheep. Erie took Micky to Thompson’s house, where it was chained up. W’tness went there about five minutes later, meeting Miss Muriel Thompson on the back verandah. Witness had with him a hindquarter, fore-quarter, and tail of a iamb and left them, asking her to tell her father that the dog had been worrying the sheep. Witness was very much annoyed, but cou d remember what was said. A week later he went aga'n to Thompson’s, taking the yellow dog Rover. To Miss Thompson he said: “ Here’s another one of your dogs that has been amongst our sheep again. He had them rounded up in the corner.’’ Witness called at defendant’s store on the 27th, and told Thompson of the full extent of the damage. Thompson admitted liability and said he would go into the matter fully when he was less busy. Thompson had the account witness had sent. He d : d not remember Thompson asking for details of the damage, nor did he remember asking Thompson to see his son Stanley about the ownership of the dog. Considered both dogs belonged to defendant. Could not say what was the percentage of mortality among new-born lambs; he was a dairyman. On the first occasion, 15th August, Micky had all the sheep herded in a corner, where the land was swamp. He could see almost the whole paddock from just through the hedge of the garden. He sent the account to Thompson on Ist October, asking for a cheque by return. The items of the claim were in reference to the damage first done, total ing £4 10s; the account also included £1 10s for clearing a boundary drain. A later claim sent through witness’ solicitor, was for £6 10s, and it covered the damage done by the dogs on the two occasions, 15 th and 22nd August. He had not claimed for the alleged damage by the second dog when he rendered the first account. He was not pressing the action because Thompson had disclaimed liability for the drainclearing. His own dogs were generally kept on their chains between milking times. The cattle dog’ was used only for herding purposes. Ferguson had poisoned a dog of his. Witness had paid Ferguson £5 for alleged damage to sheep, but he had since found that his dogs were not respons:ble for the damage. His cattle dog was run over by a car at Vaughan’s corner some time after the sheepworrying. The lambs claimed for were two or three weeks old, and for the same class of lamb he obtained 14s to 16s a head in November. His son Eric told him after visiting Thompson's that he had met Ray and had tied the dog up. To his own counsel: The payment i to Ferguson was in respect to damage J allegedly done at a considerably ear- j her date. The payment was made j with a denial .of liability, but to avoid the expense of litigation. His dog had eaten the poisoned carcase. At this stage His .Worship commented that plaint'ff had given his evidence in r. very peculiar manner. He did not appear to be dull, but was not capable of answering questions in a definite manner. The Court hoped to find the exact position from, other evidence. Plaintiff gave the impres-

sion that he was very indefinite about the essential points. Continuing, witness said there had been no other fatalities at the lambing period from the flock of 123 ewes. Eric T. J. Grigg, son of plaintiff, said on Saturday. 15th August, he went to the paddock when his father called out for him to follow Thompson’s dog home. It was five or six chains away when he first saw the dog. Near Thompson’s shed he met Raymond Thompson, and told him about the worrying. Ray sai'd he would tie the dog up, adding that the same dog had worried Redgate’s sheep the previous season. Miss May Thompson was there at the time. Witness, on his way back to work, saw his father going to Thompson’s. A little later he found ewes and lambs that had been worried by a dog. He "heard ’ later that Thompson’s dog Micky had been shot. His brother destroyed the sheep that had been worried.

To counsel for the defence: When his father first called to him he was just incide the paddock gate, and his father was nearer the sheep, having come througih. the hedge from the garden. The ddg was going towards its home. Witness’ brother Ray was on the road behind him at the time. When his father ca 7 led to him he was five or six chains from the lamb. Arrived at Thompson’s, witness did the talking to Ray Thompson, and his brother nr’ght have added some comment in support. Raymond seemed convinced for he added that the dog would have to be shot, for it had killed some of Redgate’s sheep last year. Witness did not closely examine the dog for blood or wool on its mouth. His three terriers ran loose at times, but the cattle dog was off the chain only when the cows had to be brought in. He had never seen Foote’s or White’s dogs in his father’s paddocks. One of his father’s dogs was poisoned in Ferguson’s. It went through there when witness was feeding out to the dairy stock beyond that paddock. He had not seen Thompson’s dogs in his father’s paddocks. Thompson had grazed sheep for three or four years. Dead lambs were not left in the paddocks—he knew of new-born twin lambs that succumbed on a frosty morning that season. .His father’s cattle dog was ran over by a motor car in September. When he returned from Thompson’s he went with h:s father to see the sheep; there were five ewes and three lambs that had been badly bitten, and several others had had wool pulled off them. All were alarmed. Harold A. Grigg, another son of plaintiff, dealt specifically with the alleged worrying on the second occasion. On 22nd August, on his return from Te Awamutu,' late in the afternoon, he inspected the sheep and found them very alarmed. Next morning he found two new-born lambs dead and the dams in distress; others were the worse for worrying and some had to be destroyed later. In a subsequent interview with defendant in Te Awamutu the latter said he would go into the matter and let plaintiff know. At Thompson’s house Stanley inquired about the alleged worrying, but witness did not say that Foote’s and White’s dogs had also been on his father’s farm. The interview at Thompson’s store took place about ten days after the second worrying. His Worship briefly reviewed the evidence for the plaintiff, and that he had not been convinced that i Thompson’s dog had been the cause i of the damage. The usual mode of I proof in such cases was the barking | of a dog or dogs with the sheep, a i propensity for worrying sheep or! straying from home, and that it was out of control. He did not believe that plaintiff was a prevaricator, but his evidence was most extraordinary. The evidence in support quite confused the issue. There was one statement that the dog when first seen was barking, but another declared that it was eating a carcase. The evidence as to distances was also confusing. He would hold that the evidence was not sufficiently convincing for him to say the damage had been done by the dog blamed for worrying. The evidence showed that the dog could just as probably have gone to the already defunct carcase, and begun to feed. For a conviction the evidence must be definitely convincing. This had* not been so in the present case. It was unfortunate, no doubt, for plaintiff, for he would be nonsuited. Costs totalling £5 10s 6d were awarded defendant.