MAGISTERIAL.

Kaikoura Star, Volume XIV, Issue 757, 20 July 1894, Page 6

MAGISTERIAL.

Kaixouba, Wednesday, April 18. Before W. Smith, Esq , and A. S. Collins, Esq., Justices. CIVIL CASES. H. Hitchcock v. L. Schwass. Claim of £8 Is. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs. J. A. Haswell v. A. Gilmore. Claim of £9 Is lid. Defendant pleaded inability to pay. Judgment for amount, £4 10s to be paid promptly and belance at the rate of 10s per month. J. A. Haswell v. H. Smith. Claim of £2 10s Bd. No appearance of defendant, judgment for amount of claim and costs. R. McCallum (solicitor, Blenheim) v. W. J. Smith. Claim of £l6s 17s 2d. Mr Mclver for plaintiff. Defendant, in opposing the claim, said he did not know what had been done for the sum claimed. Mr Mcltor explained how plaintiff had been engaged by defendant, through him (Mr Mclver), to file a statement of defence in Supreme Court proceeding by solicitors in Christchurch for possession of the farm occupied by defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for amount of claim with costs.

W. Broughan v. W. A. Close. Claim of £l5, value of dog shot by defendant, for whom Mr Mclver appeared. Defendant’s solicitor remarked that if plaintiff could substantiate bis case, proving that the dog was shot on his land, it was a criminal offence.

The Court did not entertain the point. Plaintiff’s evidence was to the effect that on evening of July 9 defendant came to his place and said he had shot a dog which he believed was Stove’s. Asked if his (Broughan’s) was tied up. Told him they were not. Had previously sent them to round cattle up. Got a light and went outside, called dogs but could only find one, the slut. Close said they had been down in his father’s paddock amongst sheep. Told him he was mistaken, he had shot a valuable dog, and taken the bread out of a poor man's mouth. Hunted about but could not find dog. Went in direction of Barrett’s. (A sketch plan was put in, showing, generally, the position of plaintiff’s and Close’s farms and steadings, division of paddocks, camping ground of sheep, position of cattle, place where body of dog was found, etc.) Dogs were barking at the cattle about 6 that evening. Body of dog was found next day, at midday. It had two charges of shot in it. Inside was like a ‘ mummy.’ Billed defendant for dog, he said it was too much and offered him a dog of his own, and said would make some other recompense. Refused all the dogs he had. It was near 8 at night when defendant came to his bouse. Did not for one moment think defendant knew it was his dog be had shot.—Witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr Mclver : Plaintiff said dog was found about 3 chains inside bis fence. (Skin of dog was produced.) Dog was skinned and opened by his son-in-law in presence of witness. Did not hear report of gun on night of 9tb of July. No friction had taken place between be and defendant, who expressed regret for what he had done, and willingness to make reparation. Sent a message to defendant stating that if he (Close) would apologise the case would be withdrawn. No apology was made. D. Stove, called, stated that about 9 on night of July 9 plaintiff asked him to assist in looking for one of his dogs. Got lantern to do so. Had heard Broughan’s dogs barking at cattle. Did not hear any shots - Could not find dog. To best of his belief Close’s sheep had not, from what he saw next day, been disturbed by dogs. Never saw plaintiff’s dogs molest sheep, never saw them among sheep. He thought the dog could not travel far after the way it was shot.

John Brown gave evidence as to finding body of dog on plaintiff’s farm ; no blood about spot. The dog never molested sheep. Thought it was shot in bead. Between plaintiff 1 s land and Close’s farm there were 7-wire fences which a dog wounded as this one was could not easily get through. Richard Workman stated he saw body of dog after it was found. Helped to skin it. Found one shot in shoulder, one Ophind shoulder, rest in flank. Didn’t examine heart or lungs for shot. Lungs were filled with blood, and entrails broken up. Greater part of shot went in over flank, the dog evidently being shot broadside on, as it ran away. Had seen the dog running about after cattle, but never after sheep. Cross-examined—Had no idea how far the dog would run, perhaps 2 chains. Dog did not appear to have struggled after it fell. Once killed a pig with one shot behind the shoulder.

John Paap said plaintiff came to him, told him that one of his dogs, a valuable one, had been shot. Dog was one that did not worry sheep. Defendant came to him hearing that he was to be a witness, and in course of conversation said he would own that the dog was not after the sheep. Made sketch plan put in by plaintiff, at his request, to assist the Bench and lawyer in understanding the matter, and to aid the Bench in arriving at a just conclusion. Dog would have to go through two 7-wire fences to get from Close's farm to where it was found. It was a good dog. That concluded plaintiff’s case. Mr Mclver contended that he bad nothing to answer, There was no proof that defendant had shot the dog, and such proof was absolutely necessary to establish claim of plaintiff, who should be nonsuited. The Bench did not take that view of the case.

Wm. Alfred Close, managing his father’s farm, said be was instructed to shoot any dogs that strayed on to it. Advertisements to that effect had been published in the Star. On evening of July 9 his sister, Mrs Galway, said she heard dogs barking in the sheep paddock. She got him cartridges and he a gun. He went straight out, night being stormy. In crossing a creek got up to his waist in water. Saw a biack object about 25 to 30 yards distant, which he took to be a dog, and fired. Heard a yelp, and fired second barrel, without hitting dog. Plaintiff's boundary was about 220 yards away. Found sheep disturbed, but huddled up. Creek was in flood and sheep could not cross. After shooting at dog went to Broughan and asked him if his dogs were tied up, as he had shot a dog which he believed was Stove’s. Broughan came out with candle, and called dogs, but only |one answered. Showed Broughan where he had shot dog, and said he was sorry whoever dog belonged to. Sheep had been disturbed and driven up to top end. Next day picked up 4 disabled sheep and took them into stable—they appeared to have had rough time of it. Sheep had been worried on the farm 2 to 3 weeks before, legs of 2 being broken. On 11th saw Broughan, who shook hands. Said, \lf that is way you feel you can have my dog.’ He refused it, not being satisfied. On 13th, at |to 11, when riding round paddock with his father, saw plaintiff’s slut in ewe paddock. Put his dog on to it, and it ran into Broughan’s. Refused to apologise, lest it should be taken as admission of guilt.—By plaintiff. —Did not tell you sheep were not disturbed. Don’t think I told Paap dog was not amongst sheep. May have asked on July 9 if he saw cattle. Mrs Galway, residing on farm, said between 7 and 8 p.m. on July 9 heard dogs barking near house. Told her brother who got gun and she cartridges. He went out, at back, through bush, and from 3 to 5 minutes after she heard shots fired and yelp of a dog. Did not know distance from house to Broughan’s. Could not form idea as to time it would take to traverse space. Creek was in higher flood than she remembered. Her brother was absent so long she feared he had met with accident in creek, and was just going to Mr Curtain for help when he returned. Broughan, on Wednesday, told her brother that he believed in his own heart Jerry did not intend to injure him, and they shook hands. Broughan said he (Broughan) was to good natured. It had been his ruin and had kept him poor. Jerry offered his dog, but Broughan refused it.—Cross examination unimportant. James Jamieson gave evidence as to position of sheep on afternoon of July 9, and of their appearing next day as thought worried. Did not live at farm. Mr Mclver addressed the Bench, holding that if defendant shot the dog in question—and he still contended that there was no evidence that he did—that the act took place on Close’s farm. Mrs Broughan and Mrs Jones were called, and swore that the slut was tied up before, at the time and after the hour defendant alleged he saw her running in ewe paddock ; that dog remained tied up until Saturday. Alben Close deposed to riding in one of paddocks with his son. Roused a dog, which ran into Broughan’s, whose dog his son said it was. Could not, himself, say whose it was. Bench retired for about 5 minutes, and, on returning, said they had come to the conclusion thtft defendant had illegally shot the dog. Plaintiff’ would be awarded £B, with costs, 365. Witnesses did not claim expenses. The Court then rose.