Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 138, 14 May 1891, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, May 13th, 1891,:-' (Before Mr Brabant, E.M.) ' civil cases. ■"■": * Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following cases :— G. T. H. Lyne v. R. Pinsent, £1 Os 7d ; A. W. McFerran v. E. Turner, 4s 7d (to be paid in a fort- ■ night) ; F. Gray v. B. Sherrin, £± 11s 6d; W/L. and W. A. Bailey and A. Bell and H. Cornfoot v. F. Beechey, .£3 11s 6d (to be paid at 5s per week). . SHEEP, CASE. ... " T. Denton v. H. . Eutherford ; claim .. £57 2s. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff and • Mr Hankins for defendant.: This claim ; arose from the alleged distraction of >a number of plaintiff's sheep and -lambs by defendant's dogs. All witnesses were ordered out of court, and Mr Sandilands opened the case at some length. . : Thomas Denton, -farmer, in Harbor Board Block, deposed to having two sections on the block, on one of which ho resided ; on one section had 100 lambs, 82 ewes and 2 rams ; on Sunday, 15th March, saw horse -ancLdog tracks;- what sheep he saw -were all right ; the following Friday went up to see about some dogs ; on 19th March.saw John Rutherford, his brother, and Thomas Framptqn at' Feilding; when the first-named asked if he (witness) had seen his "kuris," witness said he hadn't ; Frainptom said they might be worrying his (witness 7 ) sheep ; witness said they might be dear, dogs to> them ; that night saw two dogs worrying some ewes ; caught two dogs by means of a slut, and chained them up ; next : day came to defendant and asked him to fetch his dogs away ; defendant asked if they were amongst witness' sheep, and he said, they were, and he (defendant) had better come and see for himself the damage. they had done ; defendant said he couldn't go, being too busy ; but offered togo on the Sunday, which was agreed upon ; J. Rutherfbrd and his brother came up and the former said they were his " kuris " right enough ; afterwards he asked witness what he was going to do about the sheep: told him the best thing would be for him to take the lot at a fair valuation; [witness here detailed a conversation between J. Rutherford and himself, relative to the proposal for the former to take over the whole lot of the sheep] ; afterwards saw Rutherford, senr., 'and asked him if he could help Jack in the matter of taking over the sheep, and he declined having anything to do with the matter at all ; when mustering the sheep on the Saturday with Messrs Mitchell and Banks, found a lot dead, and others wor.ried and being eaten with maggots ; ; ; the land was so rough that it would be impossible to find all that were missing. Cross-examined : Knew that the two dogs he had caught were Rutherford's ; when he first saw Rutherford, senr., did not say he had caught -the dogs ;hai found 34 or 35 lambs' and lGKewes 1 carcases. . : . By the Bench : It' would, he as difficult from the nature of the ground to .find live sheep as it would dead ones ; some of . the missing oues might possible be alive, . but he didn't think they were.' - ■. i Steven Bellve deposed to having a Rection uear plaintiff's ; two of Rutherford's sons caine,aud witness, went with them to look at the sheep ; found a number of dead and wounded^ but couldn'.tL'sajlhow mmy ; the thistles were so thick ? and high, that it would be impossible to findalii. the missing sheep; [The remainder. of this witness' evidence was chiefly of .& corroborative nature], : W. D. M. Banksi deposed 'to going*, with Mr Mitchell rg.l)eri ton's place on Saturday 28th March,, to see some sheep that bad been worried; found 29. dead, lambs, 16 wounded, lambs, 6, dead ewes, 5 wounded ewes ; it ■would be. yery possible to miss some on account of the large quantity of high thistles ; should think it likely that the. bulk of the. wounded ones '. would die. Cross- examined : The, boundaries were partly fenced ; two dogs, were kept to keep the sheep in ; had himself lost about ; 30 head of sheep on fenced land through not being well lo.oked after ; some of the ; dead sheep were in a fresh state, and some had maggots in them. By the Bench: Should think the . worrying had been going on for some time, but some had been more recently than a week, probably t|te night before. William Mitchell deposed to'accompanying -Mr Banks, and gave . similar eyideuce to that witness. This closed the case for plaintiff. The defence was that the dogs belonged to Mr John Rutherford, son of the defendant, and that the latter had nothing to do with them, moreoyer that the dogs were not there at the time the alleged worrying took place. • Henry Rutherford, butcher, of Feilding, gave evidence of plaintiff coining to his house early on Saturday, 25th .March, and asked witness to go with him ; plain- • tiff didn't say what he wanted; but came a little later and said he had got witness' doga, and they had been among the sheep; witness told him he knew the dogs ; neither of the dogs in question belongs to witness ; his son assisted him in business. Cross-examined: His son was employed by him as a seryant, and was bo when this case happened ; the dogs slept on his (witness') premises in Manchester street. ' ."' Patrick Campbell, Feilding, deposed to giving one of the dogs in question to John Rutherford ; had used the dog as a sheep dog, but never knew him to worry sheep. Wm. Baker, Makino, stated haying; swopped the other dog to John Rutherford ; had never known it to worry sheep-Cross-examined : A dog might worry sheep when no one was with it. John Rutherford deposed to going up on the 22nd March, with several 'others, to his father's section on the Harbor Board Block ; they had his two dogs Bob and Shot, and these did not return home with them ; on the 26th saw plaintiff who asked what color his dogs were, and when told the color he nodded and said he would "make it hot for him," or something to that effect; only part of the front of plaintiff's section was fenced and thereat of the section was all open; when he went to plaintiff's place by his request only found 3 lambs and a ewe dead there, and 10 lambs dead on the riyer bed, oft the section; the dogs belonged to him, and he got them as stated by Campbell and Baker. Cross-examined : Had no cattle of hi* own, and all the work he did was for his father; the dogs were of great use-to him in his work. Thomas Frampton gave surular evidence to that of the previous witness as. to what passed between plaintiff and John ' Eutherford about dogs on Maroh 26th. . . ;"■'■ Cross-examined : Plaintiff . said there " were 10 or a dozen dogs about there Who . would worry sheep. Charles Frampton gave evidence of another dog that had been worrying sheep in the same neighborhood. V ' .". Joseph Hurdle, junr., and Willikm Holman were examined, but gave na material evidence, and this closed the case for the defence. Both oounsel addressed the Court at some length and argued out various pbirxt^v V ■ fif law, and at 4.20 His -Worship- defei^' H ~

judgement till 7 o'clock p.m., the case having occupied 5 hours. G. Mitchell. v.R. Kidd, and G. Flyger v. B. Williams. These two were notices to take evidence in cases to be heard in "Wunganui, and the evidence of several n itnesses was accordingly taken. At 7 p hi. His Worship. save judgement in the sheep easo : the first question was •whether the elder or the younger Rut her ford was liable, suppossing the dogs in •question to have done the alletred darn- \ a<re ; he read frouj the Dog Registration : Act; what constituted an owner of a dog, j aud ruled therefrom that Rutherford sjuior was the owner of these dogs ; hs to the question whether these dogs did the <lauutge or not, it was not clear that the v tad killed the whole of the sheep they were charged with kilhug; it was unfortunate that the witness Brown had not beeu culled, who' was said to have iirst seen these dogs won ring', the sheep ; it was only fair to tnei.tion this in case the defendant shouhi apply for a re-hear-ing ; the best evidence was that of the witnesses Banks aud Mitchell ; he would only £,'ive a decision in favour of plautiff, who- was' entitled to recover for 35 sheep killed aod for geueral damage to his £<><;k ; he fixed the special damages at i'l4 18s and the general at id, total £19 18s; with costs',' witnesses' expeuses and solicitors' fee. . • (Jj.Bull v. J. H. Blackmore ; claim 13s. Mr Sandilands for plaiuiiff and Vjr Prior ior defendant. This claim appeared to have arisen out of an impounding case ; the dfieudant, who is the public pouudleeper haying, it was alleged, failed to properly carry out his duties. James Campion, manager for Mr Bull at Aorangi, deposed to losing two horses on Monday, '20ch April ; came to Feildiug pound, bnt they ware uot there ; this was between 9 aud 10 a.m. ; there was no notice at the pound of any horses having been in the pound ; on Tuesday evening went again, but they were still uo horses or notices; sent to the Marton pound; *nd also to the Turakina, offering £1 reward; eveutually found by accident that there were two horses iv the Feildinj; pound paddock ; he there and theu ■put the matter into the solicitor's hands; defendant said it was not ueuessory to put a tioticj at the pound as there ■was one at the Borough Uouucil office : afterwards he said he had put one on the pound; went to the pou:.d wit i N-nuau Gorton but coiild'tind no trace of a notice. Norman Gorton confi-med the evidence given by former witness as to the;e beiug no notice at the pound. This closed the case for the plaintiff. For thft defence ;Mr 'Prior argued fhur the plai u tiff was practical 1. out of Court, as he had riot .-given notice of complaint ■within the 10 days prescribed by the Act ; moreover, it would be proved that no fewer that 4 notices of the impounding case in question had beeu puf. up. James H. Blackmore, '-Borough poundleeper, gave lengthy evidence as to impounding the horses, and putting up the notices duly several times; [witness produced pieces of notice board, which had apparently been maliciously destroyed,and on which were $he remains of the notice he had put up inrthis par-ticular-case];-, the horses had been put into the pound paddock, which was duly registered as belonging to and part of the pound ; they were put there for safety as there were some horned cattle in the pound at the time; it was a common thing for notices to be obliterated or torn down maliciously. At' this stage the Court was adjourned till the next "monthly. sitting. The affiliation case of Noble y. Bray was till -Saturday next at 10 -aim. : ■ •