Feilding Stipendiary Court

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 5, 6 July 1893, Page 2

Feilding Stipendiary Court

This Day. (Before Mr. Brabant, S.M.) N. Christensen v. Gustave Foster, claim L 7 17, for loss of employment owing to the bite of a sheep dog the property of defendant, and medical attendance necessitated thereby. Mr Reade for the plaintiff, Mr Sandilands for the defendant. The plaintiff deposed, that on the 18th of April last, he had occasion, to call at the defendant's house with a letter, when a dog belonging to the latter bit him very severely ou the hand. In consequence of this, the plaintiff had to keep away from his work for ten days and incurred L 3 7s for medical attendance and medicines supplied.

Dr. Sorley deposed as to the nature of the injuries which necessitated the plaintiff abstaining from work for about ten days. Yietze Dixon also gave evidence for the plaintiff. Mr Sandilands submitted that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the dog was the property of the defendant and there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The dog is not a ferocious one and has never previously bitten anybody. Theopbiluß, Johu. and Lizzie Foster, children of the defendant were called for the defence. The two last witnesses deposed that they heard Christensen say to their father that it was not the dog's fault but the plaintiff's that the dog bit him. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Worship delivered judgment in the following terms .-—Under section 19 of the Dog Registration Act every holder is held liable for damage done, even though the dog has never preriously shown symptoms of ferocity. Sections 15 and 16 of the same Act make the owner re* sponsible for the dog's education, so that it shall not do any damage to person or property. The defendant is owner, as the dog belongs to his son, who is under age. Although the defendant's wife is lessee of the section where the defendant lives, such ownership does not free the defendant from his liability, and no sufficient evidence of contributory ntgligence has been adduced. Judgment would be for the plaintiff for the sum of L 6 19s, with L 2 lls costs of court, LI 8s witnesses' expenses, and LI Is solicitor's fee. Thos. Evans, ranger for the Wellington Acclimatisation Society, charged Edward Fowels with shooting without a license to kill gome in that district. Mr Sandilands for complainant. Mr Beade for accused. The complainant deposed that on the 7th May be cams across the accused on Mr J. G. Wilson's property, in the San« don district, and ascertained that Mr Fowels had a license on him to shoot in the Bangitikei district, but this license did not hold good for the Wellington district. Mr Beade argued that a license issued in Bulls was sufficient for anywhere in the Colony ; also that the accused had taken oat a. lieenso prior to tl^is action being brought. His Worship overruled Mr Reade's contention, and held that a license issued in Bulls only held good for that district. More especially seeing th&t & license issued in Bulls cost only 10», whereas in the Wellington district it was £1, and as the fee varied in different districts, it was necessary that licenses must be taken out for as many separate districts as a person wished to shoot in. (Left Sitting.)