TE KUITI MAGISTRATES COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 208, 15 November 1909, Page 5

TE KUITI MAGISTRATES COURT.

Thursday, November It. I'JOl). !>for« Mr F. O'B. Loughnan, S.M. Green and Colebrook (Mr Wine) v. Mahood: Judgment for plaintiff by default. Rouse (Mr Sharpies) v. Taylor: Judgment for plaintiff by de fault. Rouse (Mr Sharpies > v. fwa: Judgment for plaintiff by default. Plrikson and Verner (Mr Ftnlay) v. t'upuha: Judgment for plaintiff by default.

Townsend (Mr Finlay) v. Nelson: Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Townaend (Mr Finlay) 9. Wallace: Judgment for plairttifTNtfitb coots Hint? v. Bishop: Judgment for plaintiff with costs. P'ullerton (Mr Finlay) v. Wilson: Judgment by default with costs. Black man and Cobb v. Hapua: Judgment by default with costs. Otway (Mr Finlay) v. Sowry: Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed. --Assault. Harry Anthony Jensen charged a Native named Wharo Waiora with assault at Tio Tio, Aria, on September isth last. Informant in evidence stated the trouble arose about a dog which tbe Natives claimed* and which Informant also claimed and would not give it op to them. In a scuffle Wharo picked up \ stick and struck at informant's head. Informant put up his arm and stopped the blow which broke his wrist. His brother came out of the house with an empty rifle, and as soon as the Natives a»w the rifle they ran away. Informant was laid up for five weeks and could not work. Is working again now but the arm is stilt weak. Mrs H. A. Jensen stated that she saw the scuffle and saw Wharo strike her husband on the arm with a stick. After further evidence had been heard accused, who reserved his defence was committed for trial to the Su|>reme Court. Accused was allowed bail in his own recognisance of ISO and two sureties of £25 each. —Sheep Worrying Case.™

Nikora and others 3Bed W. Comer, i farmer at Hangatiki. for having trespassed on their property and shot a dog thereon on July 31st last, for which they claimed £2O. A couunter claim for £42 for dogs belonging to Nikora and others worrying Mhoep belonging to Comer was entired. Mr McDiarmid appeared for the Natives and Mr fin lay for Comer. His Worship decided to hear the cases separately, and the counterclaim was heard ffrst. The facts disclosed by the evidence showed that cn July 'JHtth. Comer had in his paddock about 8.0 ewes heavy in lamb. Tbe sheep were worried by dogs and twelve of the ewes were killed white several were injured. Evidence was given by W. Johnston farmer of WaUotno. to the effect that

h.' was passing Comer's place on July 2Hth, and saw dogs among the sheep, ■s. He went into the paddock and drove off the dogs, getting close to them. They were worrying the sheep. One wus a big brindle dog and the other a small collie bitch. The big dog went towards the river, the bitch towards Nikora's. Witness had to catch the train at Hangatiki and went on. giving warning to B. Board as to what had taken place. Subsequently witness was requested by Mr Comer to eome and identify a deg which had been shot and witness recognised the dead dog as the one which had been worrying the sheep. Witness also gave evidence as to the value of sheep, assessing the value of Comer's ewes in lamb at 2€s each. The usual amount per head farmers charged for general damages apart from sheep killed in such cases was ts per head. Witness considered this a smalt charge. In atm examination witness said he could not have sworn at the time he s:\w the dogs on the sheep that Che colli«r was a bitch. He was sure of the identity of the bitch, when he saw it dead.

Ben Board. a farmer and neighbour of Coiner's stated in evidence he had been called by Mr Johnston and told about the dogs being among Comer's sheep. Thereupon witness went to the paddock. He saw two dogs which belonged to Ntkora's place, on the edge of the road. One of the dogs was a smalt sabte and white bitch; the other a heavy Mark and tan dog. Witness brought Comer down to the aheap paddoctr where Ihey found eight dead sheep which had been recently worried. In cross examination by Mr McDiarmid witness said he knew Nikora** dogs as be lived c f «se by and frequently saw them. Witness saw the dog the day it was shot. W. J. Comer, defendant, corroborated the evidence of previous witness regarding the teas of sheep and seeing the dog*. Next day four more d<sad sheep were found, on# in the paddock, and three in the river. Me considered the sheep were worth JEI nek Many of the ewe# subsequentiy alippfd the iambs. Witness shot the dog three days after the sheep and he had shown the dead dog to Mr Board and Mr Johns ton. both osf whom bad identified the animal. _ _

Evidence a* to the worrying «f the sheep was also given by E» J. Comer. A. Scholes gave evidence as to being mpeeted by Comer to go to bis place and meet Nlkora with a view to asses* fag the damage and fixing op matters. This was after the dbg had been ■♦hot. Nlkora came to Comer's place and met witness, and agreed to pay for the sheep the price being assessed at 15s per head. The damage w*s fixed at a low value in order to facilitate a setdement without going to Court. In opening for the defence Sir MeDiarmid submitted there was a distinct doubt as to the identity of the dog that did the worrying and he would produce evidence to show that te dog that was shot was not in the vicinity of the sheep on the day in question. Tu Kahut. one of the defendants, stated that on the day the sheep were worried he and Wairoa were splitting posts about a mite and a half away from home. The dogs were brought with them to round op some horses and remained with them all day. Corroborative evidence was given by Wairoa Oneroa. Nikoru te Amobanga said he was at Otorohanga when the sheep worrying and dog shooting occurred. Some days afterwards Comer came to his boose

and asked bim to go and meet Mr Schofes. H«dtt 10 and Mr Scbctes said be bed belter pay for the sheep that had been worried. Witn'ss ref O'Jiatedo wnersbip of th* dog and 9aid the animal belonged to To Kahui. Witness became annoyed and walked away telling them to see the dog's owner. Was certain be did not agree to pay for the ibtep. The case for <be plaintiffs for tres pass and shooting the dog was then proceeded with. Ani te Amohanga. wife of To Kahui. stated in evidence that en Jttly 3l#t. she was at the back of her boose and heard the report of a goo and a dog crying oat. She saw defendaot pointing a gon to shoot at the dog again. The dog was between witness and defendant, not quite in a line, and witness was frightened Witness was under the impressicn that her bnsband was shooting the dog and called 001. When defendant came op to the house witness asked.bim why he had shot the dog. Her bosband also asked defendant the same question. Defendant's brother came op and said the dog had been worrying the sheep. The dog had crawled under the boose and de- | fondant asked that the dog should be brought oat. Defendant asid he woold shoot the dog in spite of everything. Defendant asled questions , aboot the ownership of the dog and took the carcase away. Subsequently 1 they examined the boose and found shot empebdded in the weatherboards and in timber alongside the boose. | There were people aboot the premises I, when the shooting occurred. j Corroborative evidence was given by Maria te Amohanga. To Kahoi. and Wairoo Oneroa. and all agreed ! < that the dog in question bad not left • the immediate vicinity of the kainga j, before it was shot. I 1

Constable Fraser. of Otorobanga said be received a complaint from the IfMTis on July 31 about tbe shooting occurrence. The following Saturday he proceeded to Nikora's place to investigate. He found shot embedded in the weatherboards. It was namber 3 shot and was to be seen in front, at the corner, and along the side of tbe house. He saw defendant who admitted he had used number 3 shot. Defendant told witness Nikora was going to pay for the sheep. Upon seeing Nikora the tatter denied promising to pay for the sheep. To Mr Pinlay: Defendant said he had fired four shots altogtbere. Witnets foond shot embedded in the fence costs.

The defendant in evidence stated that on the day prior to shooting the dog be saw the same dog and another among his sheep, lie went to tbe house for a gun but the dogs disappeared. On July 31st between 10 and U o'clock he saw the sheep disturbed and getting his gun went to the paddock to try and shoot the dog. He came on the dog among the *heep and fired at it. The dog was hit. but ran away. Witness chaacd it and fired again. The dog wad hit but got away and witness ran up a ridge to intercept it. Witness came on the dog close to the fence and fired two more shots bitting the dog each time the last shot being close to the fence. The shot from witness' gun could not have hit the house as the direction they were Bred in was away from the house.

E. J. Comer corroborated defendant's evidence regarding the two first shots but would not say for certain where the other shots were fired from, as defendant was out of sight behind the ridge when they were fired. His Worship in delivering judgment said that a usual in Native rases the evidence was very conflicting and one bad to strike a sort of average as to what was really the troth. On the evidence the dog that was shot was sufficiently identified as being concerned in the sheep worrying. Judgment in the counter claim wood be given for Comer: £l2" for ewes kilted and £lO

109 general damages, making a total of £22 I os. Costs to Use extent of £lO 13s were also allowed. With reference to the claim for trespass aod shooting His Worship said it presented one curious feature. The story of the defendant was very natural and bore the stamp of troth. Unfortunately it was not corroborated in the most important points. The question was: did defendant cross the fence before firing the fourth shot. Two Natives say he did. Defendant says he did not. If defendant was exceeding his right in going on to pain tiffs' land be thought the shooting was justifiable as it was only completing what he had started on bis own land. At the same time the shot marks no the house had not been satisfactorily accounted for, and indicated recklessness, although the provocation was great Be would award plaintiffs £3 damages and would not allow them costs.

Townshend v. Ratima: Claim for (foes for rum-supply of milk to Aria Dairy Factory. MrFinlay appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hine for the defendant. Points of law were raised for the defence by Mr Hine. and the case was adjourned till next Court day for legal argument.