SHEEP WORRYING

Hokitika Guardian, 15 November 1929, Page 7

SHEEP WORRYING

A NOVEL POINT. When five dogs worry sheep, can the owner of one dog be shouldered witli the whole of the damage done? This inieresung question was tile subject of an appeal case in the Palmerston Nona bupreme Court the other day. On .June 7th, five dogs, one a Terrier owned by Ernest Fair, a Feildiug merchant, were seen worrying sheep belonging to G. H. Lank-shear, farmer, of Colyton. When the flock had wen rounuod up it was discovered that eleven were killed, four wounded, and five lest, while the flock was much disturbed. The sequel was a-i action in the Feildiug Magistrate’s Court when Lankshear claimed from Fair TCI 18s damages. 'I ue Magistrate found that Fair was tiie owner of the black and white Fox Terrier which had worried the sheep along with four other dogs, hut there was no evidence as to the extent of the damage done by this particular dog beyond injury to at least three sheep. The whole of the damage sustained was fixed at £SB ss, but it would ’be unreasonable, be held, to fix Fair with the whole of it. • iml I'liieiii. was entered tor the plaintiff for Cl 1 13s, being one-fifth of the total damages found. lumkshenr, however, was dissatisfied with the Magistrate's decision and lodged an appeal which was heard in the Palmerston North Supreme Court. He claimed that the Magistrate was wrong both in law end in fact; that be was wrong in finding that there was no evidence as to the extent of the worrying done by the Terrier beyond injuring three sheep; further, the inleienee tint hair’s dog did one-filth of the total damage was not justified by the evi--11 The Magistrate should have decided that Fair was liable for the w<T' the damag” assessed. To bis Honour, Mr CuJlinano, who appeared for I/ankshear, stated that tiie appeal was of great interest to sheep-owners. From, the point of vi"\v of common justice the Magistrate’s finding could not stand. H was the duty of all dog owners to keep their dogs under control. He proposed to argue that the owner of any one dog in a pack that was' sheep-worrying could lie held res.'xm-1 sidle for the whole damage. The M.ag-i-traie had only awarded Haiiksliear ruc-(iI ‘ h ihriiii-jos against Fair because there were live dogs ill the pa'k. It was significant that since the 'I eerier had been shot the worrying had eea.pd. Mr Cullin.me pointed out that there was no law under which a Court could apportion damages except in marine collisions. A perusal of the evidence showed that the Fox