R.M. COURT.
ASHBURTON— THURSDAY. (Before John Ollivier, Esq., R.M ) CIVIL CABES. Larabie v Buckley —Claim £34 15s, for loss and damage sustained by the worrying of plaintiff's sheep. Mr Purnell, with him Mr Crisp, for plaintiff, Mr A. A. Loughnan for defendant. Counsel having opened the case for plaintiff, called "W. Watson, farmer, who deposed to having seen a dark dog rounding up sheep m his paddock m May last. He waf olose to the dog, and followed him for about 1£ miles towards Buckley's, Had since seen the same dog at Buckley's. Crosß examined : No other dog was with the one ho caw with the sheep H« could have given as good a description of this dog without seeing the one at Buckley's. Did not notice whether the dog had a tail or not. Peter GordoD, 14 years of age, said he knew Buckley's two dogs. One is a bit of a sheep dog. He is a wolfy-hoaded, slate colored dog. Some time m June last, at 4 p.m , was m the paddocks, about a mile from Lambie's, and saw Buckley's dogs there. Tried to send them homo, but they vent away. They were about four ymls from witness. The noxt morning Mr Lambie asked witness about his sheep being worried. Cross-examined : Tried to send the dogs home because they were going towards Lambie's paddocks. This took place m the middle of June. Henry Hardwick, shepherd, deposed thut he went on Saturday, 11th June, and , examined Lambie's sheep m company with 1 Lambie Saw that five had been killed i and a lot injured and knocked about. • The sheep were 2 tooth crossbreds, and m good condition Had offered 7a 6d per i head for some of these sheep. The sheep i had the appearance of having been yarded i up, and some had the wool torn out. ) They had been worried by dogs. The I flock had suffered at least 6d per head I through this. Went same day to Bucki ley's with Lambie. Buckley said if it was J bis dogs he would destroy them— if Peter . Gordon said it was hie dogs that worried f the sheep. Saw Buckley's dogs ; one was I a sheep dog. It was wet and dirty. The I other was a greyhound. Buckley said the I dog was tied up Jate the night before. ) Could not say if Buckley's dog had ever • killed sheep, ■ Thomas Adams said :In April last was b with a threshing machine, and carted i water from Bnckley's. Saw the dogs 5 there. One was a bluish sheep dog, and 3 one a greyhound. There were also two 1 other sheep dogs. Had seen some dogs ? m among Lowe's sheep ; they were not 3 the slaty dog or the greyhound : Was ? present when an arrangement was made * about settling the case, and Buckley fc offered £20 to Larabie to let him keep the { dog. ' H. W. Parsons, farmer, Kylo, deposed B that he knew Buckley's dogs well. They * had been amongst his sheep about a year 1 ago, and he bad told Buckley that his doge 3 were dangerous. Made no claim for 3 damages en Buckley. 3 Wra. Bruca deposed that he was sent by 1 his father to Buckley's with a message that Buckley's dogs had been amongst their sheep. Did not see them there himself. Murdoch Bruce deposed that two of Buckley's dogs had been amongst his sheep. One was a slaty-colored dog ; the other a young sheep dog. Had seen the aarae slaty dog with Mr Buckley since. John Lambie deposed that when the arrangement between himself and defendant was made, Mr Buckloy said that it was really the other dog that worried the sheep, and he had since destroyed that one, and that if he (plaintiff) would allow him to keep the sheep dog alive, he would gire him £20, which he (plaintiff) refused to agree to. D. Buckley deposed that he had a sheep dog of a peculiar color, which Mr Lambie saw. It was a valuable sheep dog, and had never worried any sheep to witness's knowledge. On 30th May last he was at Chertsey sale, on which day the cheep dog was tied up at home, and had not been loose that day. The dog had boon away from home with Mr Mabin from 15th to 27th May ; the dog had followed Mr Mabin home from Ashburton. On 27th May witness got the dog back from Mabin, took him home m his trap, and tied him up. The dog was not loose for over a week from that date. First heard of the sheep worrying on the 11th June from Lambie. Lambie saw the dog referred to as a peculiar colored dog. He did not recognise it He (Lambie) said that his daughter had seen the dogs among the sheep about a fortnight before Lambie went down the paddock, and eaid he thought the dog looked like the one he had shot at. He then saw the other dog and said that they were the dogs. It was after dinner when Lambis came to witness's place. Had had the dog out that day. Took him off the chain that morning, and worked the sheep m the paddock with him. It had been a wet night, and the paddocks were wet. The dog was wet. This was on the 11th June. Took the dog off the chain before Lamb : e came. The dog was not off the chain the day before. Had no dog witl a bob tail. Never owned one that he recounted. Knew there was such a dog m the neighborhood. Cross-examined by Mr Purnell ; I knew the dog was tied up on the morning of the 30th May. It was tied up on the 27 th. and remained so for over a week after. Told Mr Lambie on the 11th June that my dog was always tied up. Did not tell him that the dog was tied up on the 30th May. The reason witness was willing to pay £9 12s, and to kill the dog wa« " becauie you lawyers persuaded me into it." Agreed to pay that sum, although knowing that the dog was tied up on 30th May. Would "pay that amount any time to escape you or your crowd." Witness thought he had instructed his solicitor (Mr White) that the dog was tied up on the 30th May. Told him all the circumstanges of the case. " Don't think you (Mr Pmnell) had much to say. It was Mr Crisp-" (Mr Crisp : "Oh ! come now !") Was not willing to carry out the settlement proposed (killing the dog and paying damages.) Saw Mr Lambie at the sale on the 30th May, Have not killed any dog since the 11th June. If Mr Lambie has sworn that I told him that I had killed the other dog, I will not say whether it is true or not. Saw Mr Crisp at the races, and had some conversation with him. He advised, me to kill the Blaty-blue dog, and bet me a new hat I would lose the case- Witness did not say that he had thought better of it and would not destroy the dog. To the Court : The dog was on the ohaln for fully a week, from the 2?th May. The dog wont work for anyone elie but me. Mrs BuokUy, the wife of the defendant, gaid that "h® knew the dogs m question. The peoalUr oolored dog was away some time m May. Witness' husband brought (t back on the 27ch. It was tied up m a kennel. Saw the kennel three or four times * day. The dog was kept tied up for abont a week for fear he thould go back again to Mr Mabin. Witness never untied the dog, Bametnbered Mr Lambie and Mr Hardwiok coming to own the <fcg m Jane. Witness h«d fed the dog that morning. It was tied up In the kennel, Fed him again after dinner. That was before Mr Lambie came. Cross-examined : Remember the 27th May because we engaged a man on that day. On the 30th M»y, my haoband we.ab to a talfl and be t Jid jqe to tell the
>oys not to loose the dog. My htubstft killed. a djg ia the month of April. It had not botu worrying shetp. It wil ft black and white dog mixed. The peoullar colored dog was kept tied up til day on the 30 th May. It was kept tied up (or about ft week. John Backley, son of defendant Mid I lire with my father. We have a sheep dog and greyhound. My father brought back the sheep dog from Mabln'a on tht 27th. It was chained np. I did not loose It. It was kept on tha ehsin until a week after it cime, and again on the 11th Jane. It was not loots on any other oooaiion. My father took it with him on those ocasslons, to work, with the •beep. It was ohained up when he brought it back. Whin Mr Lamble oame I asked him for a description of the dog*. *He said one waa white, and yellow round the neck, and tan color. He did not lay what the other was like. Cross- examined : I have three brother* and four aistero, and there is a man employed on the farm. Either of them could loose the dog. They would not do so as my father only used ft himself. The dog has never gone away from the farm on its own aooount to my' knowledge. Don't know of anyone having complained of that dog worrying sheep. Thomas Buckley, another of defendants sona : Remember the dog being away with Mabin. It came baok on S7feh; May, Remember the day btoause my father went to a. ial<* nt Aihburton on that day. Don't remember the day of the week" my father brought the dog back and. the. dog was tied up. He was kept tUd up. My 1 father works the dog. Don't remember 1 soeing the dog worked a'ter he camVbaok. 1 Cross-examined : Don't know how Mr Mabin came to have the dog . Knew the dog was brought back on the 27th, because ' my father engaged a man on that: day, 1 Don't remember the day of the week, I think it was near the end of the week. Edward McAnnlty : I live at Kyle. I 1 know Mr Watson. One morning while I p was planting trees one of my boys told ? me that there was a dog worrying 1 Watson's sheep. Sent another of my boys • to inform Mr Watson. Was down at 3 Watson's the same evening ; lie spoke of • the dog which had been worrying his • sheep. He said it was a savage-looking 8 brute, and that he had no tail upon him.' r Have seen the peculiar- co'ored dog of i Buckley's ; he has a short bushy tail. 8 This witnees was not cross-examined, 0 Edward M'Annlty, junr : Am a son of 0 last witness. On 30th May last was • working for Watson Went after a dog. r Saw a dark grey dog going into the ploughed paddock. Got within about a a chain of him. Did not see any tail on the d dog- Saw the dog jump a fence. Did b not see any tail then. Knew Buckley's 1 peculiar colored dog ; that dog has a tall. 0 Cross-examined : Told Mr .Watson that s if it had had a tail it would have been >* Buckey's dog. - (Laughter m Court ) • The Magistrate : There s a ,very long ® tale about the dog now at all events. y Edwin Mabin : Enow a dog belonging c to Buckley which followed ine from 17th to 27th May. Returned it to Buckley on 1 27 th May. It is a safe sort of dog so far V as I know. > r Cross examined : The dog followed me 8 from ABhburton. Kno ir it was the' 17th r because it was the night of the Ingleside. Know I returned the dog on the 27th, J because that was the. day 1 was^ dipping c sheep. ...:'., |l Percy Gorton : Reside at Kyle. ■' Saw 0 Sir Lambie one Saturday m June. He said he had hadsome sheep worried the night •f before by a dog. He believed it was Mr is Buckley s dog. :•:•.• c Croes-oxamined ; I was leading a horse, c Robert Mulligan, farmer, Kyle.; Remember seeing some dogs m my b'addock o some time m May; One was a white and j- brown greyhound, the other a black sheep it dog. Don't know. Mr Buckley's, dog. c The dogs I saw were not Mr Buckley's. ■t Defendant, recalled : Before Mr Gambia *" and I went to the kennel on the It to c June he said that the dog he had seen d among his sheep was yellow round the neck and tan color. I did not know P until after the summons was issued that a the day on which the alleged damage was d done was the 20th May. » Mr Purnell: Mr Lamble did not •t mention the 30th May to me. He said P the worrying took place about a fort't night before. n Mr Lambie, re-callad — I never said to Mr Baokley's boy*. that the dog wm yellow round the neck and tan-oolored. I never addressed myself to the boy at «il. On the 11th Jane I went to Hard* iriok's before I went to Baokley's and was back again m time for dinner. I dine at 12 o'clock. To Mr Loughnan : I was at ChertieyJ sale on the 30th May. Don't recollect, seeing defendant there. Mr Hardwlok, recalled : I had dinner at Mr Lambie's after we went to Buckley's We had dinner I should think about 1 o'clock. It was between 11 and 12 whe» we went to Mr Bucklej'n. Mr Loughnan addressed the Court for the defendant. Be did not contend that 7s *t head was an excessive value for the •heep but submitted that the evidence as > to damage done, calculated at 6d per head, was unsatisfactory, As to the faot relied upon by the other side that defen> dant bad agreed to pay £9 (not believing his dog did the damage) he Mr Loughnan submitted that instead of the arrange ment being used to the detriment of his client only, it might fairly be oontended for the defendant that the sum of £ was the fair measure of damages. As to the damage done on 30th May. plaintiff did not identify defendants dog. (Mr Pnrnell: Yes— reading from his notes— lmnhie says "1 saw two dogs, one was a greyhound the other the slatyblue dog of Buckley's) Mr Loughnan, continued, commenting upon the evidence as to what took place on the 11th June, He also drew attention to the faot as shown by Mr Mulligan's evidenoe, thtt there were other dogs at this time prowling about worrying sheep, and urged that it was highly probable that the mischief done was done by these dogs and not by defendant's dog. He then pointed to the distinct evldeuoe that defendant's dog was kept ohained up from the 27th May for over a week, and asked the Court In face of that faot to give jadg. Mont for the defendant. Mr Purnell, for plaintiff, pointed out that defendant could not succeed unless the Court disbelieved tho evidenoe of four or five disinterested witnesses and also drew attention to the faot that defendant's counsel had confined his remarks to one particular dog. It was quite suffiolent if plaintiff proved that one of the dogs belonged to Buckley, but he (Mr Purnell) contended that Lambie's Identification of both dogs as Buckley's d,ogs was fqll and complete. He also drew attention to the fact that the evMenoe on defendant's side was what he would term family evidence. With regard to the compromise he ur» ad that Mr White, as solicitor for defendant, would never have advised such a campromise of the faots stated to him were, such aa defendant .had sworn to to-day Ih. a Magistrate gave judgment for plalnti ff for £21 and costs , J. O. Duncan y R Hill, claim £L JudgmeDt for plaintiff with oosts. Same v Shaw, olalin £2 14s 6i. Jadement for plaintiff with costs. N. Welsh v J. Holmes, claim £i 8s 6d —Mr Purnell for plaintiff. Defendant filed a set-off for board, eto. of plaintiff and his horse. Plaintiff swore to the oorreotness of the particulars of the demand. Cross-Bxanained by defendant. I came to yonr plaoo on a Monday, started Tuesday and worked till Monday evening. Worked Tuesday, Wednesday* Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Worked on the Sunday at yonr suggestion Did not work before break. nit. I WQ?k«d after dinner. J swetf
hftt I worked on two occasions after ten
think one of the evenings was a Sunday evening. I generally get my breakfast at ■•ren and go to work about half-past. Gotmy mid-day meal at twelve. Worked from quarter-past seven or half -past seven till twelve. Never took half an honr to dinner. Worked till five o'clock. Osn't ■ay exactly what leather I brought out. Brought out two half hides. Used more than one half hide. It might weigh 35 to 401b*. The price would be li 5d per lb. Used abcmt a doeen balls of hemp. Don't know that sixteen balls go to the pound. The Talae Is 6d a ball. I «ed from ten to fifteen— say twelve. Used under 21bs ef wax. Used aboot six balls of wax Value a penny a ball. Used between ten and eleven yards of collar check. Wholesale it Is worth 2s 3d a yard. It takes one and a half lb to one and three quarters hair for faolng oollars ; faced twesty-one collars and catt saddles. The hair is worth 2s a pound. Used about 2* worth ef tacks. The wages for a good journeyman saddler are £3 a week and found. I had a horse at your place. I also had my looker there. A number of the articles obirged m the account were new artioles. The value of these (given m detail) was 29i 6d« I was Involvent once. lam not •ware that you were one of my viotims. I have a farm. When I WBS doing this work last Jane, I don't know how much I owed upon It. Xcould'nt say without my books. I may have said that I could tarn enough as a travelling saddler to Fvf ft off m a year, I don't know that am a rery clever man but I know your are not. I am very well known la the district and so is Mr John Holmes. Re-examined : I am a master saddler. The master is entitled to a trade profit. Mr Holmes' manager engaged me. I agreed to oharge the same prices as the saddlers charge In Cbrlstohuroh or Ash. burton, myself and my horse to be found. The horse got the run of the paddocks, and of the loose boxes, after defendant's horses went out. The prices charged are the ordinary trade ptices. On the morning before I left I presented the , account to Mr Sherwood, Mr Holmes' ' manager, fie said he was sorry he eould'nt give me a cheque but he would sign the aooount and Mr Holmes would send me a cheque. He presented me with no account for board and lodging. He made no objection to the prices but was very well pleated. I got no claim for board and lodging till last Friday. Miobael Joseph Leddy, saddler : said I sometimes travel about working at farms and stations. The prices charged In the aooount shown me are not quite the same as I charge. I charge 7s for collar, s. The charge In the account m 7s 6J. Some others charge 7s 6d and some less. Wherever I have been I always get food for myself and horse without charge. Cross-examined: Could'nt say wh»t ought Jo be the oharge for repairs unless I knew What the repairs were. The price I pay for leather is Is 5d to Is Oil per lb. It wonld'nt be possible to tell how muoh leather was used. A half side of leather would be about 181bs. Defendant addressed tfce Court stating that he did not come from Chriatchnroh to Bare £4 Bs, but for the porpoße of letting the farmers know what sort of man they had to deal with m Mr Welsh. On receiving his account he (defend ent) saw there were what appeared to him to be overcharges, and he had sent plaintiff a cheque for £8, beiDg the amount wbiob he considered fair and just. Was prepared to allow Welsh at the rate of a chilling an hour although he would call a witness to prove that 35s a week was a fair rate of payment, James Heseltine, saddler : I send a cart omt to the stations every year. I pay best men. from £2 6s to £2 10s. We charge shop prices. The account shown ms exceeds oar Ashburton prices m the whole by 18* Cross-examined : I do not refsr to Items for repairs. It Is usual for a travelling saddler to be provided with food for himself and how. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs £1 6s lOd. Hampstead Town Board v A Belts ; Claim 11s 3d, Mr Cutbbertson for defen dant. Mr Hughes, collector for the Board, produced the rate-roll, Crcsa>examined ; I swear I sent the rate notice to defendant. I believe the property Is a leasehold one. I have never collected a rate from defendent, I remember seeing defendant about two Months ago. I did not tell him I had not sent him a notice. ; To the Court :— The roll was open for •bjectUß. m the usual way. A. Betts, defendant, said he leased the section from 21st July 1885 for 12 months. Left on 16th March 1886. Paid the rent Susrterly. 3?ever received a notice from Ir Hughes. He (Mr Haghet) told witBets once when they were having a glass together that he had an acoount against | him for lls 3d for rates for Brankio'a elas». Witness said he had been out of It II or 12 months. Hughes replied "Oh ! then you'll be clear of it and I must see Mrs Brankln." He then admitted that he had not given me a notice. He said this morning that he had. Crossexsmined . You did not tell me ihat you would try and get the money from Mrs Brankln but that you would hold me responsible. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs. 6ame v W. Broker — claim 6s 8d for rates. Mr Haghcs having deposed to sending the usual notice by poat. Defendant pleaded that he had never received it. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, Aahborton Bread Company v Paton, judgment summons for a* balance of £1 13s lOd — Ordered to pay the amount forthwith with oostr. Roubb v Hewett claim £9 3s 6*3, judgment summons — Mr Clayton for plaintiff. Mr Clayton called Julius Jackcon who disposed to having paid to Hewitt between the 25th and 26th July about £59 on account of sale of plant etc. Saw Mr Hewett m Ashburtoo to-day he appeared m Rood health. Cross-examined. The plant referred to was nominally defendant's but was the property of the Mount Hntt Estate who never parted with the ownership. , W. Route — plaintiff, was unable of his own knowledge to say that defendant hid received any moaey for his own use since the date of the jadgment Hugh Hewett defendant, said I recolleo Mr Jackson paying me money m July. He paid me £59 18a sd. The money was not mine, I appropriated some portion of the money to my own use. I have had two months living for my wife aud myself out of it. The money was • given to me. I have left, out of the £50 odd, only 9d. On the application of plaintiff's oounsel the case was adjourned for a month. I R. Paton v Hewett. This case was * similarly dealt with. W. Bayllsv W. Reese, adjourned for a fortnight. The Cou.it then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. next day.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18870902.2.5
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1652, 2 September 1887, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
4,057R.M. COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1652, 2 September 1887, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.