DAMAGES CLAIM SUCCEEDS

Chronicle (Levin), 10 June 1946, Page 4

DAMAGES CLAIM SUCCEEDS

- BULL FIGHT HAS A SEQIJEL IN COURT ^ . A fight between two bulls was ! finally 'settled in the Levin Court jon Friday witn the hearing of a j ^xaim by Harry Murdock (Mr. A. M. i Ongleyj for £27 damages ' from fSamuel William Carter (Mr. Jame^ Todd;. Mr. A. M. Goulding S.M., 'was on the bench. i Piamtifi stated that a bull | belongmg to Carter had jumped ! several fences separating his propj erty from Carter's, and had attackLed his bull, injuring it so much tnau j it was unfit for further use. The ! bull had suffered a.previous injury ! in the form of a ricked muscle in the hind quarters. Its value at the jtime of purchase was 2b gumeas, out he had been compelled to seli it after the incident i'or £4 2s 6d. To Mr. Todd, Murdock said that the fences separating his property I from Carter's were not in such a ! condition that any animal could | have broken through. He was certain that any damage to his boundary fence was ca'used by the bull breaking through. Previouslj the fence had been in good order. j Alan Edward Smitn said in evi- : dence that he had seen the bull several times before the incident i and that it had been in good condii tion, but that afterwards it was in I very bad shape, being hardly able to 1 walk. ■ Raymond Hefetor Long, veterinj arian, said that on examination of ; the bull after the incident it was iseen that its hin joint was dislo- ! cated, in addition to other injuries. ! In his opinion it was unfit for its i normal purposes. ! Cross-examined by Mr. Todd, witness said that he had not been informed of a previous injury. The injuries he saw were consistent with , thosp^ spstained by fighting with another bull. James Ryrie told the court that the boundary fence, on his inspection soon after the incident, was broken in two places. He was unable to say whether the fence had been damaged before. Before the attack the bull was stiff in the hind quarters. In his opinion the value of the animal before the fight would be only £10, because oi the unsoundness. Witness admitted that it was usual farming pracuce to provide a special bull pad- : dock. Carter's bull had previously broken the bull fence in a fight with other bulls, and had gone into the property adjoining Murdotk's, where it had been left. It was not brought back to Carter's because of the late hour. He considered the value of Murdock's bull before any injury to be from 12 to 15 guineas. William James Easton gavp similar evidence. Mr. Todd auoted section five , of the Impoundmg Act to show that the fence bounding Murdock's property was insufficient. Mr. Goulding contended that the £er*ce was sufficient within the meaning of the Act, and gave judgment for the plaintiff to the ! extent of £17 10s 6d, with expenses [and costs totalling £7 3-s.