SHEEP – WORRYING CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 1050, 18 November 1903, Page 2

SHEEP - WORRYING CASE.

The Wairoa Guardian reports the following case : H. Summerfield v. Timu Kerehi, claim of £2O, value of 17 sheep worried in the racecourse paddock by defendant’s dog on July 24th last. Mr Sandeman for plaintiff, Mr Rees for defendant,

Before the paße was gone into Mr Sandeman said that when the caso was beforo the Justices they held it ought to go before the S.M., who also should assess tho costs of the day. Mr Rees objocted to this. Mr Sandeman said the Justices should have fixed the costs.

His Worship said the word 1 ‘ Court ” in section 99 meant the Court hearing the case, and that was the Justices’Court. He could not, therefore, allow the costs in question, Mr Sandeman: It was another case of “ Justices’ justice.” His Worship said he could not allow such a remark. The Justices, no doubt, had a reason for their action.

Mr Rees took a preliminary objection to the fact that tlje plaint did not disclose the cause of action, and His Worship upheld him.—Plaint amended accordingly. P. H. Summerfield stated that he rented tho racecourse paddocks and on 24th July last went there, where he had 172 sheep running, He saw a dog worrying his sheep, ho having one down at the time. Tried to catch the dog but failed, and followed him to defendant’s wbare. Saw defendant’s son there, who' admitted the dog was his father’s, and on being told what it had done advised that it should be shot. Witness said he not only wanted that done but also to be paid for the sheep. He asked defendant to go and look at the damage done, but he did not appear. Witness then got Mr Peakman to look at tho shoep. Found eight badly worried aud two dead in creek, also two driven over the creek, but they afterwards died. On seeing where the sheep were driven in he mustered the rest, counted them, and found seven more missing, concluded they had been driven into tho creek and swept out into the river. Had put the flock there only two days before, and it numbered then 172. The flock was a special one for early lambs, and they were, at that date, lambing. Learned from defendant he had shot the dog and he would pay the damages with a cow, but defendant’s value was too high. Made a demand for £l7.

S. Summerfield and W. H. Peakman gave corroborative evidence, tho latter fixing the value at 15s or £1 ahead and good skins 3s 4d each.

The defendant admitted his dog did the damage, but claimed not to be held accountable for sheep “ missing,” also that the value por head was too high, and that he should he allowed for skins.

X). Gamblo gave evidence that the sheep were only worth 9s or 10s. The Court gave judgment for plaintiff for £l2 15s, being 17 sheep at 15s per head, less £1 13* 4d for skins, damages £2, in all £l3 Is Bd, with costs £1 6s 6d, witnesses’ expenses 7s, solicitors' fee £1 Is, entering plaint 10s; total, £l6 6s 3d.