Damages Against Owner Of Marauding Dog

Chronicle (Levin), 20 April 1948, Page 4

Damages Against Owner Of Marauding Dog

Alleging thqt a dog belonging to his uei'ghbour had been responsible' for the dis'appearance of five of his wife's poultry, Thomas Edward Peterson, of Tararua Road, Levin, sought dam'ages amounting to £'3 l'&s in ah action against the neighbour, Charles Lesiie Poe, of Ara-, paepae Road, heara in the Magistrate's Court, LeVih. Mr. D. P: Todd; appeared for plaintiff and Mr; J. P. Bertram for. defehdan't. ' In his evidence, Petersoh stated that h'e had on one occasion actuaily seen the dog, which he knew to; be defeh'dah't's, worry ohe of the fowls and carry it away, but he had; headed it off ahd desxfoyed it. He' had infornfed Roe of the mcidenti and shown him the dog, which he had claihied. Prior to this he hadi been suspicious of the dog, as It! was always in his yard and abouti 'the foWls. His wife had previously seen the dog with one of her fowls' Which Was half plucked ahd hearly! dead. i Called by Mr, Todd, Phyllis May Peterson, Wife o'f plai'ntiff, described incidents leading up to her conviction that Roe's dog was the cause of the di'sappe'arance of her fowls. She said she had" oncfc rung up' Mrs. Rbe ahd told her of the trouble she was havihg, and had asked her to tell her husband to keep. the dog tied up. The dog had cohtmued to frequent her prop.e'rty •so .she again rang, 'this time asking for, Mr. Roe. Tha't after Mrs. Peterson had telephoned he had kept his dog on a chain except for about- two hours a day was the eontention oi the defendant. He kept poultry himself•and though the dog was among them frequently, and even Igd with them, he had had no "trouble. He must give Judgment for the plaintiff in regard to two, of the fowls, which he was perfeetly satish'ed had been killed by defendant's dog, said Mr. A. M. GoUlding, S.M. The other three were speculative: It was a great pity that the trouble could not have been overcome in • some Other Way, added the magistrate. He hopfed that there would be no further disputes between the tWo partifes over poultry. Damages to the extent of £1 19s, reprbsentihg .the two fowls at an a^Sessed Value of 15s each, "wero alloWed and court costs.