SHEEP-WORRYING

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 19, 15 October 1937, Page 4

SHEEP-WORRYING

Prese ABSOPlation.l

» r*rr- — - .1 > » v Dog's Keeper Held Liable for Damages FULL COURT JUDGMENT

(BS Telpsrraph

WELLINGTON, Last Night. In a judgnient delivered yesterday the Full Couft upheld a decision of Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., holding a man liable for damage to sheep by a dog not owned by him but fed and kennelled on behalf of his daughter. Appellant was Adalbert Joseph Tobin, acqountant, Wellington, and respondents wero Agnes Dorman and William Fullerton Dorman, Brooklyn. The Chief Justice (fchr Michaej Myere) qUoted seetion 28 oi the Dog Registration Act, 1903 : 4 'For the purpQSe of this Act every person shall be deemed to be the ownor of a dog, and liable accordingly, .who (a) keeps or harbours or has in his care for the time being, any dog, whether at large or in continement, or (b) occupies any house or premises wherein any dog is usually kept or permitted to remain," Counsel for appellant contended the seetion did not apply in an action if the registered or true owner of the dog wqs known, and that it must be read with some qulaification. His Honour refeired to the original Act, oi 1880, and said: "All that the framers of the CofcSolidated Act have done is to reproduce verbatim jn seetion 27 the provisions of seetion 19 of the original Act and to d^lete from the interpretation clause the detinition, of 'owner of a dog,' and to reproduce in seetion 28 what is substantially the same definitiofi." Mr Justice Ostler agreed that the ACt defined the ambit Of the statutory fiction pleaded by counsel for appellant and said: "lf seetion 28 of the Dogs Kegistrfition Act,' 1908, had provided that every person shall be deeraed to ' bq tlie^ owner of a dog who keeps and "harbours that dog ete«, then the eourt would have been entitled and bound to asqertain for what purposes and between whqt persons that statutory fiction was to be resorted to. The person wh0 keeps, etc»> is only to be deemed the owner 'for the purposes of this Act,' one of which was to make it easier for any person suffering injuries through the activitjes of a.dog to recqver damages." Mr Justice Smith, Mr Justice Johnston and Mr Justice Fair concurred, Mr Justice Smith stating: "The object of tbe Act seems to be to make the remedy simple and to avoid the necessity of any inquiry as to real ownership." At the hearing Mr E. F. Hadfield appeared for appellant, and Mr A. T ioung for respondents.