TAIHAPE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 253, 25 October 1937, Page 10

TAIHAPE

CLAIM FAILS. SHEEP DOG KILLED. At the monthly sitting of the Taihape Magistrate's Court on Thursday, L. Revel), of Koe-ke (Mr. W. H. Maclean) claimed from H. Tweedie, of Hunterville (Mr. York), the sum 01 £l5, being the value of a sheep dog which defendant was alleged to have run over and killed while driving a motor lorry. Mi 1 . R. M. Watson, S.M., was on the Bench. In evidence Revell stated that he was droving cattle on a road neat Hunterville when the incident occur-1 red. The cattle were lined out on either side of the road when defendant drove his truck into the mob. The dog went ahead to prevent the cattle breaking away. The driver of the truck proceeded at a speed of 15 to 20 m.p.h. and when the truck was near the end of the mob witness saw the vehicle swerve as if it had struck one of the beasts, am' he went up to find the dog lying on the road. The driver could have seen the dog with reasonable care. He told witness that the dog had jumped down from the bank under the wheels of the truck and defendant could not avoid striking the dog. Witness said: “That was my best dog. You are to blame for killing him.” The defendant denied this. Witness further stated that he had had the dog for about live years and had paid £2 10s lor him as a pup. He was a good all-round dog and witness considered he was worth £l5, but personally he would not have sold the dog at any price. In order to get another dog as good witness would have to pay considerably in excess of £l5, or else buy two dogs to do the same work. H was very difficult to get a dog that was good at everything. Counsel for Defendant: In short, the dog had all the points of a perfect dog and none of the vices?—Yes. Counsel: They usually do when they are dead. H. E. Price, manager of .Siberia Station, said he knew the dog well. Revell had worked for him with the dog for some time. Witness would say that £l5 was a very reasonable figure for the dog, which was quite an unusual animal. He could do any work required of a sheep dog or a cattle dog.

Alexander Glasford, an employee of Borthwick’s, Feilding, gave corroborative evidence regarding the dog. Counsel for defendant applied for a non-suit on the grounds that negligence on the part of the driver could not be proved. Moreover, the plaintiff was some distance behind the scene of the accident when it occurred. Defendant Tweedie gave corroborative evidence as to the position of the cattle on the road. There was a bit of a dip in the road and witness changed gear. At this instant the dog jumped down from a bank a few feet in front of the truck. Witness swerved in attempting to avoid striking the dog and felt a bump on the wheel. He was travelling very slowly at the time and jammed the brakes on. Witness walked back to where the dog was lying on the road. Revell came up and made some remarks which witness would not repeat in Court. He said, among other things: “That’s just what a leading dog would do.” Plaintiff then claimed £25, later reducing it to £2O. Witness then told him to go and see his (witness’) employer. The magistrate said he could not see that defendant had been guilty of negligence. Counsel for Plaintiff: The driver knew he was going through a mob of cattle and should have taken the proper caution. The Magistrate: If the driver is not guilty of negligence then it is the duty of the Court to give judgment in his favour. It was held iir a case in the Supreme Court that where a dog is in such a position that a driver of a vehicle cannot reasonably anticipate that his action in driving is going to cause injury to that dog, then there is no blame attachable to him. The facts in this case are that the dog jumped from the bank and a wheel of the lorry went over him. I cannot see that negligence has been established. I am sorry that plaintiff has lost his dog, but I shall have to give judgment for defendant, with costs £2 2s. CROQUET CLUB. At the conclusion of the official opening of the Taihape Bowling Club on Thursday, a similar ceremony was 1 performed to mark the opening day in connection with the Taihape Croquet Club. The Mayoress (Mrs. L. B. H. de Latour) officiated, and during the course of a happy little speech she extended congratulations and good wishes to the Croquet Club on its flourishing state, and hoped that still further progress would be made during the 1937-38 season, which she hoped would prove • highly successful and extremely enjoyable. She went on to say tnat the success of the Bowling Club contributed towards the success of the Croquet Club, and vice versa, and she could assure the president of the Bowling Club that his kindly references to the Croquet Club were very much appreciated. She complimented the greenkeeper on the appearance of both greens, and extended a warm welcome to old and new members of the Croquet Club and visitors, on behalf of the president, Mrs. E. Box. The speaker took the opportunity of congratulating Mrs Box on her elevation to the office of president, and added that the honour was well deserved. (Applause).

Mrs. de Lautour then declared the season open and called upon Mrs. Box to hit the first ball through the hoop —an act that was greeted with loud applause, and so commenced a season that all members have been awaiting with ’eager anticipation. The usual “opening day” competitions were played, with the following results: —Hoops, Mrs. L. de Lautour; clock, Mrs. A. Fuller; hurry scurry, Mesdames J. J. Ryan and R. Kirker; golf, Mrs. E. M. Forsyth; peg, Mrs. D. Treadwell.

The green was in excellent order and the beauty of the surroundings was enhanced by the lovely summer frocks worn by the ladies, the whole producing a scene that beggars description.