RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT, CLYDE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 952, 16 July 1880, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT, CLYDE.

(Before Jackson Keddell, Esq , R.M.) Thursday, July 15.

James M‘Arthur v. A M‘Leod, Mr F. J. Wilson appeared for plaintiff, Mr Tnrton fur defendant.

'Phis was a case for illegally harasing ■driving and worrying cattle, property of plaintiff with dogs. The evidence of plaintiff went to prove that defendant who is a shepherd in the employ of M cssrs M ‘Laren and Turnbull and Co. Moutere Station did on the afternoon of Sunday the 4th instant set his dogs on to cattle in plaintiffs paddock and that only by the interposition of plaintiff were the cattle saved from being precipitated down a perpendicular bank into the Creek, and also that plaintiff had to shoot the dog.

For the defence it was maintained that the cattle the dogs were set upon were on the run outside plaintiffs paddock, but that the dog kept after them till they went into the paddock and th it the dog would not answer the call to come hack.

The defendant was particularly sure the cattle ho set his dogs on to were outside the paddock fence on the run, while plaintiff and his witness were as sure the cattle inside the fence were first attacked.

The Magistrate said as there was a cross - action for the shooting of the dog, he would hold over judgment. M’Leod v. M‘Arthur.—Claim Lls, value of a dog shot by defendant. The same Counsel appearingFor the defence justification was pleaded, and as it transpired in evidence that the dog, though registered, hal not a collar on with its number and name engraved thereon, it was contended that any dog not in

the iiiiiiiPiliiiii? f.il'oiolng of liis master without n collar u-ndd be destroyed by anyone, an I thatas the dog in qucstoin wonkl not answer Ins mastc’s call, it was necessarily beyond bis control and not in his immedia‘e following, and consequently liable to be shot more especially under the circumstances. It was also stated by defendant that the same dog had on two occasions when passing by plaintiff’s hut attacked his horse. The Bench held the contention to bo good, and dismissed the case, with -costa for defendant M‘Arthur. In the first case defendant M'Lood was fined 23s and costs.

Mr Turton asked leave to appeal on the second case, which was granted.