SHOOTING OF BULL

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 31, Issue 9, 11 December 1945, Page 5

SHOOTING OF BULL

FARMERS AT VARIANCE PLAINTIFF NONrSUITED A ra*Her unusual case concerning the shooting of a high grade 3-year Hoi stein bull, the assumed property of A. Kendall (Mr R. F. Smith} farmer of Rewatu, by a neighbouring share«iilker f W. G. Bunyan (Mr L. Buddie) of AWakerll, occupiijsfd the Magistrate's Court, Whakatane last Tuesiday morning for seme 'considerable time. Mr E. L. Walton S.M. was on the benoh. The plaintiff (Kendall) said that -the back of his place was bounded by some rough h'iJl country on which the defendant was. in the habit of grazing dry stock, driving them to and from his main farm at Awakcri some 11 miles away. Shortly after defendant's son and a Maori boy had driven a mob from this run-off country he had missed a valuable 1101-, • stein bull which he valued at £20, which he heard from a neighbour had been driven away with the cattle concerned. He had immediately contacted Bunyan who said that the bull had been dangerous and that he -had been forced to shoot it, not knowing to whom it belonged. He now sought compensation to the value of the beast. Mr Buddie moved for a non-suit •on the grounds that the case for the plaintiff had not been fully proved. The Magistrate ruled that Bunyan's admission that he had shot the bull was sufficient- and that the case should proceed. William George Bunyan related the incidents leading up to the removal of the cattle. The area was mnfenced, he said and several larmiers used it. Their greatest trouble was*with stray and wild bulls of all "breeds which frequently did much harm. He had sent the boys ahead, and followed with his car. The JDoys had tried to cut the bull out Ibut without success. He had taken the cattle on to his farm where lie assumed the bull to be one oi the wild hill stock. He had great difficulty with the animal which had -charged him and was a menace to the'children. He had therefore shot it. Witness added that a neighbour had rung up the countryside about the same bull but nobody claimed •ownership. He would value it at ;about £8 10s. Mr Smith: Had you any legal jns-t tification for shooting this animal? Defendant: There were no visible marks. No one claimed ownership rand I definitely thought it was a wild one. The Magistrate said he thought "that any man was justified in destroying a bull if it wei*e dangerous. It was. purely a matter of self-de-fence. The plaintiff would be nonsuited with costs to the deiendant to the extent of £2 2s.