SHEEP WORRYING CLAIM

Chronicle (Levin), 14 February 1949, Page 4

SHEEP WORRYING CLAIM

| Manakau fanMS GiVeii £98 Daftiageg Described as a serious cajse ofs Sheep worrying, Mpssrs.- W; L, and C.; E. Bryant,- of. Waikawa* Manakau, brGught ah action for" £i^5 damages .against a neigfibour,. Ttia Murray, ih. the MagistrateS' COiirt, Levin, on .fridaV, :Befo'Fe Mr.'H. j. Thompsqri, S.M. Allegin|. tfiit tiie owrier'- of a ddg fespohsfbie . f 6'r death of 49 she§p ahd ldrhbs td "the totai value" of £85, Wa§ detgndant, claimant also sought general damag.es of £50. He. was representedyby 'ifii'. k. M. Tndthsdii. Defe'ndaht,. who' was repfes'ented by Mr. J. T0dd,tdrd nbt dispute.the 'fact that wOffying had takeii place* or the valiie" df the sheep coneerneti, but maintained that the 'dog was a stray and ihsisted that he had not harboured it or allowed it to remain on his property, eve'h without .his. knowledge5. Mr. Thomson saia thdt tlie area was an isola.ted gar't of Manakau. His clieiit, whb Wsts in fjaftnership .with a brOthef, had foiind tlie" first evidence Of Wdffyifif whert he discovered Orie bacily tvdunded sheepT which had died the next day. Two or three days later .he discovered eight shfeeprall badiy wounded but aliVe. The. type.. of w.orrying was characteristie in eyery case, the animals being attacked. undqr the snoulder. in every case tnd Shdefl died, Later the same day the tfrb brothers hdd ^ohe but td attend to the Sheep,; whdri they found eight larnbs which Had obViOusiy been f reshly worried. . A lit-tle funther on. aihdni Somfe' rushes they saw a dog worfying a lamb\ They recognised the dog as being one. frequently seen about the house of defendant. it was a yellowish-br'indle colour, witn a sporting type head, short Whippet like- body and long legs. Unfortunateiy the nien had no rifles ahd the aog ran away. Prior to going out to attend the sheeii, cOhiplaihant HaH rung the Murrdy housenold ahd ihquired if the dog was thefe, and had been told that it was out. Imrhediately on returning he had-again rung the Murrays and had been tord that the dog had not returned. , Later . that night he had a rin'g frorii Murray Sta.oing that the" dog had rettfrried" and was . 4sked .' whdt to do with it. Claimant 'fta'd in1structe'd that thA dog Was To be brought over- the ne'xt morhihg to bfe destroyedc Th'e dbg was brought ovei" and shot. Bryant -had then made an .mspeetio'ri ,of his ,farm and fQund.tha.t, 4,9 sheep^nad.been Worried in all.. . Thq. carcases had been examined and vaiued by a stock agent, who also saw the b'oay of the dog.r He had estifhated tlie yalue at £85 14s: ■ General Damages ^iaime'd. His client also claimfed £50 general ddmages, said Mr. Tiib'bison, as, resuitihg froih the ^Orryihg, lambs , liad beeh . separated from -Lhei'r motliers and in c'onsequencd had hot •' beeii Tropehy weaned, drophing ih value: The- activities of tlie dog had -also reduced the value of tne ' other sheep,. whose condition had • been set back b.y the. aetiyity of the dog among, therh. _■ The dog had come to MuiTay's 10 months beforo and was fed there,. and during its Stay had had two litter's of pupjpies, deciared Mr. Thorhsbh. Approaches had been made previdusiy by the Bryants to have the. do'g tied up, and at times this was carried out. Tne dog registration inspector had called at Murray's three - months _ before the incidents, but defendant had disowned the dog. . . *

Continuing, Mr. Thomson- said that.under the Dog. Registtatibii Act liability was pl.aced oh any person who harboured of haa a dog ih tlieir' care,* 6r alloived a dog to occupy a-hbiise 6r pf emises, or kept Or perhiitted it to remain there. Tlie Act had been made very wide for the phrpb'se of protecting such persons as the complainant. "We say..that defendant harboured the do'g, fed it and allowed it to have puppies. on his premises, -and that it was delive'fe'd iip.tp be shbt When tne request was made," said Mr. Thomson, • , ... . '

Called ' by Mr. Thomscnn, complainaht, Wiliiaih Leo Bryan-t stated that' he was ih parthership with his brother Clive at Waikawa. He thfen gave evidence along tne lines of the Statements made by Mr. Thomson, stating that he -had often seen the dog fed at.the door of the Murray house. He added that he had also seen it tied up In the backyard. H0 deecribed tliem as being co-ojpbrative whbn asked t6 tie' the dbg Up. FOuf times in the One day fie had gOne over his prohOrty Oh h.Otseback looking for the dog and hadTseen. sheep in a Worried conditidn. On one of the trips db'f endant's son-, Roman Murray; had accompanded him. The following day there had been another joirit expedition, and at, 10 p.m. that night defehddnt's son-| in-law, Williahi TOpia, had tA.e-| phOned Him tO say tfiat the dog had arrived homO and asking wlaat hO Wa§ To db witli it: - i Jqhh-- Hordce 'MUngavih, sto'ck arid statidh agent,- • of Levin, gave evide'rieO Of the value of the sheep arid' deseriti£$ ' the "condition and fiiture-of the Wounds. „ . Walsh Wynnvaux fcressy, dog | inspector for. the HorOwhejiua! Gounty. Goiiri'cil, descfibe'd his visit; to Murray's lioiisfe' ih fegdrd to the registfatiofi Of a dog. Bfe said that a yeil6Wy-red do'g had bfefen sitt-ihg withiri 15 feet of the house at the time, , ✓ ' ' Ciive EfneSt Br'yaht, eo-claimant' ih the casC; confirmed the evidence 6f his brother: „ . Hector," Raymprid Bryanj, coritractor aha drover, 6f Manakau, said that he was a brof'hei: "6f ,

claimants arid tbld the cdurt that Whenever he had visUed their home, he had had to pass Muf fay s house and had seeh thfe dog in duestion on most occasions. Mr. - Todd admitted that the evidence which had been heard had been very boriviricing, and said that all the defendant could do was To prove some oi the reriiar'ks n.qt trpe.- ... ( [ Mrf Mary Murray, wife' of defen'dant, alleged that/ the dog h'ad, never stayed at hef ' hushand's house. ' It had been seen around occasionally, but had never been encouraged 0r fed to her knowledge:' At times .she, had seen it in various parts of the district. She claimed that the dog Was a stray which had • been living. ,9-t.^a Mrs. Cook's house at One time/ ,She disclaimed any oiyn-ership of it It was alorig . t'hese lines that evidence " was. given by' Sydney -Tawhara, -Mrs. - Emhia Ta whara', William Topia and' Tua Murray. Mrs. Susie Cook," a widow, of1 Manakau, said that she- did not know who the dog belonged to, but tnat it used to stay with-her.

Conflicting Statements. There were two conflietihg stories in1 the case, said Mr. Thompson. As Bryant's counsel had pointe'd out, the definition of the wOrd /'owner" was a.very wide one in the Act. In this case it Was quite clear that a riumber of sheep ahd lambs had been killed ,and that ' some particular dog was the cuiprit. jln the secdnd killihgs the w'oUnds ihad iridicated that they h&d BeOri , done by the same dog. This characteristie method . o.f killing was easily recognisable. Therefore, in view of the evidence, he wduld hoM that the" sheep had beeh killed, ahd that they had beeh killed by the dog referred to. The only point on which the case theri'tUrned wai the huestioh of ownership, eontinued Mr. Thompson. The evidence of the Bryants showed that the dog had sj,ayed at Murray's. Then there was the fact that when the first ■sheep had been killed, Bryarit Had rung Murray's house and asked if 'the dog was there. Someone had answered the telephone and said 1 that the dog was away. Again ; there was the fact that Topia had gone with the Bryants to iook for the dog. That alone seemed unreasonable in view of the al'.eged bad feelings .which existed betwegn the two paftils. Tegethgr With this, was the Murray's' evidence. There was no doubt that the dog had actually been af Murray's. Claimant had ttiafle out a c&ie arid the question of the amount of the claim to be allowed then arose. .In listing his findingS;. Mr. "Thomp^bn said: "I accept cldiniants' evidence ds correct. Defendant Was the' dwner of the dog which killed the sheep and lambs. The value of t-flese animals I find to be £85 14s, dnd I assess the general damages ds £13." Costs amounting to £9 11s were allowed. -