SHEEP WORRYING.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 3, Issue 188, 21 April 1914, Page 2

SHEEP WORRYING.

Maoris Pay Damaqes.

There were about thirty natives nt lhe Magistrates Court, Pukekohe. on Thursday last, when a sheepworrying rase waa heard before Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M. Edward F. Muir, of Kohanga. near Onowhcro, claimed against Te Rauki and wife, William Tauoo and wife, Marepa and wife, Te Hiakai and wife, Piike ant, wife, Klma and wife, Naki and wife, Harl Han and wife, Paramena and wife and Tahatika and wife, all of Tauranganui, near Onewhero, natives. The statement of claim Haid: (1) On or about 31st October, 1913, a dog or d gs belonging to defendants or one of them killed 5 ewea and 30 lambs then gracing on the farm of the plaitiiff at Kohanga, aforesaid, and also injured a number of other sheep grazi/.g on th2 said farm; (2) on or about January 5 hj, 1914, a dog or does belonging to tho defend 11,ts or one of them killed 40 ewes and lambs th.ll grazing on the plaintiffs farm at Kohanga, uforesnf. Wheieupon the plaintiff chimed from the defendants, cr each of them, the sum of £SO as damages in respect of clauso 1 of the abova statement of claim, and the sum of £3O as dßimgcs in resp ct of clause 2 of the said ktitement of claim. The plaintiff in all claimed the sum of £BO.

Mr J. G. lladdow appeared for plaintiff and Mason and Mason for defendants.

Edward F. Muir, Fhcep-fßimtr, of Onewhera. plaintiff, deposed that ho suffered very largely from eheepworrying. He had, prcvioua to thin lime, as nmny as 50 sheep worried in one night. Mr Mason: I ask wlut that has to dJ with this action?

Mr Huddow : It will not, of course, be used against (ha deftndanls, but thin is an unusual case where (hero arc a lot of defendants who will deny ownership nnd some of whom will possibly be found not to be the owner?.

Continuing, plaintiff, referring to the 50 ewes lost in 1912, said the cause certainly arose from Maori dogs. There were other dogs besides these at defendants' pa, and nt defendants' pa he hud seen a dozen dogs running about loose. About the 31st October he saw the sheep hal been worried, various lumbs had been cut about the neck, others were dead. Had complained to the natives. Some of the natives who knew the dogs were "worriers" hsd them destroyed. When he went to the pn he saw a yellow dog in front of Taha Tika's housu and another yellow dog in front of Taupo's housa and a "black dog with a white neck, in the middle of tho road. These three dogs were the dogs he had caught

"in the act and had shot them. The Maoris approached limply said their dogs wiuld not worry sheep. A little boy said one dug (shot) belonged to Ruaki. His brother offered £5 to anybody wfio would tell the owner of any uf the three dogs. Tho natives weu silent; they didn't know. A considerable amount of further examination proceeded shewing what had bee.i unsuccessful done to establish the ownership of the dogs. Since the last time he had heen to the pa there had been no more Eheep worried. Further evidence led was to establish the valuo of the sheep and lambs. The sheep were worth £1 each and the lambs 10s each. The damage to tho sheep, uninjured but worried, ho estimated at £3O. Missiothering was one ol the causes of loss. If » lamb were away from ils mother for two days the ewe would not take tha lamb back again. It was rjugh, bush country and he c.uld not see all the damage that was done. He picked 100 fut ewes out of a (lock of 750; if there had not been mismotheriog and losses of lambs there would not have been that proportion of fat ewes. There were a dozen lambs injured; these Injured, bitten lambi seldum recovered. Whe.i sheep were chased about by dags In country like that thoy would get into deep holes and be lost, and (lure wiuld be damages and loss that could not be traced item by Item. Mr Mason cross-examined plaintiff at length. With regard to tho secund claim fcr damagus plaintiff assumed that the dogs concerned were those of tho Maori defendants. T. !•'. Muir, farmer, brother of plaintiff, F. (J. Walters, .1. McDonald, Hinton and I'ehi also gave evidence as to the value of tho stock.

Counsel for the pluintiir withdrew the claim against 12 of the defendants, there being 110 evidence available against them, leaving Taupo, Rinn ard Tahatika, with their wivej, as defendants.

lhe evidence of tin defendants was a general denial of ownership of the don* or knowledge of their ownership.

Alter hearing the case tho Magistrato said there was no evidence against Tahatika, but Kima and laupo had exorcised acts of ownership. Judgment was (or plaintiff as against laupi and Kima £2O for the sheep actually destroyed and £2O lor Hie remoter damage. Court coats were £2 3.', witnots'B' expenses were £f> Ss, in l:afse£l IDs, solicitor's fees £2 12a. For the defendants who wire successful a solicitor's fee totalling £7 7s waa allowed, with £l3 Is expenses as witnesses as Rgaln«t plsin« tut'.