MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1129, 24 December 1883, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATEA—FRIDAY,

(Before C. A. Wray Esq, R.M., and LI. C. Tcnnent Esq., J. fi.) civil cases.

Adams r Kirk. —Claim £5 7s 2d, goods supplied. Judgment for plaintiff for £4 2s 2d, and oasts 11s, an item of nt-rost not being allowed. McLarin v Quinn. —No appearance, struck out. Jardine v Wood. —Mr Barton for plaintiff, Mr Hamerton for defendant.

Mr Barton stated the case, which was that a number of dogs had been worrying some sheep belonging to pi aim iff. One of (lie dogs belonged to defendant, who had agreed to pay his share of the damage amounting to £2, but now declined. Ownership of the dog would be shown, also that the dog was found upon defendant’s premises. Archibald Jardine : I was living at Kakaramea in 1882. I kept sheep on my farm. On June 9, a Mr .Richards, who was employed on the railway, came and said, “ For God’s sake come down to your sheep, the dogs are worrying them.” I went down to the paddock and saw that the sheep had been worried. I recognised two dogs belonging to Wood and Mcßae. After I sawsthe dogs in the paddock, I sent word to Mr Mcßae and Mr Wood. Mr Wood came up and saw the sheep, and agreed to pay for the damage. Mr Bright was present. Seven sheep were killed outright and two died afterwards. The day afterwards I went down to see the sheep and found Wood’s dog- gnawing away at one of the sheep he had worried. I know the dog well. It is a black and white one. I va'ue the sheep at £7, and seeing that I could not trace out the ownership of the two other dogs I thought if I got £4 from Mcßae and Wood it would bo a fair thing. Mr Mcßae has paid bis share. I thought I could get \york out of Wood for his share and gave him an order for £2 17s. I thought to give him 17s and keep the £2, but he declined. By Mr Hamerton : I sent Wood an account for £7 for the sheep worried. Since that account has been sent I have never asked Id in for it. It is not true that I refused to pay Mr Mcßae an 'account unless he deducted £2. I tendered him an amount loss £2, and he accepted if, Mr Mcßae did not admit that his dog worried my sheep. Nobody would admit that their dogs ’ worried sheep (laughter). I demanded the £7 from Mr John Armstrong. At the time the sheep were worried I could have got more than 14s for them. I swear that they were worth £1 apiece. I did not see defendant’s dog attack a sheep ; I saw it leaving a sheep. lam not aware that mj' man fired at a dog in the public street in Kakaramea. Wood’s dog is black and white, and Armstrong’s is the same colour but smaller. I went and saw Wood on tho subject, but do not remember what was said.

John Robertson : I was in Mr Jardine’s service in 1882. I remember when the sheep were worried. I saw defendant that day. I saw four dogs lying beside the sheep ; two of them—Mr Mcßae’s and Mr Wood’s —I knew. All the dogs were covered round the mouth with blood. Some conversation took place that day between Mr Jardine and defendant. Mr Jardine told him what happened, and defendant said it was a bad job, but he was willing to pay his share of the damage. I had seen the dog on former occasions ; two or three da)’S after the occurrence I saw him chained up. Cross-exannne.d : The mouth of Mr Wood’s dog was covered with blood ; I did not follow Mr Wood’s dog. A few days after this 1 fired at a dog in the Kakaramea township that had been among the sheep, but I did not shoot it. At this time I saw another dog among the sheep. There were a number of people who saw it. I don’t know if they said that it was Wood’s blaek and white dog among the sheep. So far as I know the carcases of the sheep that were killed by the dogs are not removed.

By Mr Barton : I could not state the value of the sheep that were worried, but they were very valuable. W Bright stated : I reside in Patea. I remember going out to Mr Jardine’s some time ago. When we were sitting at dinner some one came to the door, and I heard remarks about sheep worrying. Subsequently I heard a conversation with Mr Wood, who came from the back paddock relative to the worrying of some sheep. Ido not think there were any remarks ns to the identity of the dog.

Cross-examined : I did not hear Mr Jardine or his man describe the dog to Mr Wood, nor did I hear him admit that his dog had worried the sheep. This was the plaintiff’s case.

Mr Ilarnerton said ho would apply for a nonsuit, because it was essential for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s dog had caused the damage. In the course of some remarks, he said the case had not been brought home. Their Worships thought the plaintiff’s case was a very strong one.

Alexander Wood, the defendant, said : I am a carpenter. I remember some question of sheep worrying at Mr Jardino’s. I kept a dog then which I had five years. During that time 1 never heard a complaint about the dog. I was in the habit of working on farms, and I never had any complaint about the dog. On the 19ih of June Mr Jardine’s man came down to me and said that my dog had been worrying sheep, I said he'could not, because he was about the place ten

minutes' before. Mr Jardino’s man then wont away, and ho had not been gone 5 minutes when the dog camo back. I said that if I got sufficient evidence that the dog had killed the sheep, I would not only pay the damage but destroy the dog. That evening I shut up the dog. He was tied up 'all next day. Mr Jardine or Robertson came down again and said the dog bad been eating the sheep again. I said that could not be, as the dog was tied up. Mr Jardine sent mo an account for £7, which I put in the fire. Since then he never asked me for the money till Saturday week. If it had been my dog I would have been willing to pay the damage. After Mr Robertson'had spoken to me, I opened the dog’s mouth but could find no traces of blood. About six weeks ago I was going past Mr Slater’s. Mr Jardine and Mr Patterson were standing there when. Mrs Jardine said my dog had hern among bis sheep the night before. 1 said he was not as lie had been with mo, and Mr Patier*on corroborated me. At the time the sheep were killed there was a large black and white retriever dog about the township.

Cross-examined : When Robertson went down to my shop to see about my dog the dog was lying in front of the shop a few minutes before. I went to Mr Jardine’s to sec what damage bad been done. I told Mr Jardine that if he could prove my dog had been among bis sheep I would be willing to pay my share of the damage. John Armstrong : I remember about 18 months ago some trouble with Mr Jardine’s sheep. My dog was supposed to have killed some. Mr Robertson came to my house to see about it, but I was not in. Mr Jardine came down subsequently, and left word for me to come to his place, when be said that my dog bad worried his sheep, I said that if bo could prove that'my dog bad done the damage I would pay my share. A short while afterwards M.r Robertson came up f.n l asked mo to let him see my dog. I did so, and after looking at the dog Mr Robertson said it was not the one that had worried the sheep. R E Mcßae said : I remember a disturbance about sheep worrying on Mr Jardine’s farm about eighteen months ago. Mr Robertson came to my place one day and asked me if a dog he mentioned belonged to me. I said no, that I had given it to the cook at the hotel. Ido not think this dog was, capable of killing sheep.

R W Brodie said: I am a butcher at Kakaramea. I live quite convenient (o Mr Wood. He has a dog, a black and white dog. My siieep have never been interfered with by this dog which is one of the most docile things I ever saw. I remember some trouble with Mr Jardiue’s sheep about eighteen months ago. I saw Robertson fire at a dog in the street at Kakaramea about the same time. I saw a strange black and white dog a' out the township then. It remained about a wsek. Cross-ex unined : I don’t think Mr Wood’s dog is alive now. I think it has been shot John Patterson : I am a farmer at Kakaramea. I remember being with Mr Wood and Mr Jardine outside Slater’s shop about six weeks ago. Mr Jardine blamed Mr Wood’s dog for worrying liis sheep the night before. Mr Wood said that could not be as the dog had been with him in the Institute on the night in question, and appealed to mo as I had been there also. This was the case for the defence. Mr Robertson was recalled by the Court and said that on the occasion when he saw the four dogs among the sheep they were all black and white dogs. Mr Brodie was also recalled to give evidence as to the value of the sheep, which he said were not at that time worth more than fourteen shillings. Mr Mcßae corroborated I his statement. Their Worships held no n asonable doubt that the dog lad taken part in the worrying, and judgment was given for plaintiff for 30s arid costs,

PATE A—Tiffs DAY.

(Before C. A. Wray, Esq, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Anna Bayfield was cliargecl with being drunk and using obscene language at Manutabi on the 22nd inst. Prisoner pleaded “ guilty ” with every mark of contrition. Constable Lister deposed that be was on duty at Manutabi on the 22nd inst. About a quarter to 12 when botli coaches were there the conductor of one called witness’s attention to the prisoner, who was inside the coach in a state of drunkenness. She bad also assaulte 1 one of the passengers. Witness took her into custody but she struggled violently and used obscene language. The prisoner said she came from Alanaia where her husband worked at a saw mill. On the two offences a fine of 40s or in default 14 days imprisonment was inflicted. The fine was paid. Lizzie Pallet, a Maori woman, was charged with being drunk at Manutabi on the 23rd inst. Constable Lister stated that late last night be bad found (be prisoner lying drunk on the road and quite incapable, Fined 10s and costs or 48 hours imprisonment.