SHEEP WORRYING

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 258, 23 June 1932, Page 4

SHEEP WORRYING

FARMERS AT LAW ' PLAINTIFF AWARDED DAMAGES FOR LOSS'OF EWES AND LAMBS A REPOROA CLAIM The sequel to alleged sheep worrying causing the deaths of* 24 lambs and a similar numher of ewes was heard in the Rotorua- Magistrate's Court yesterday morning before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., when G. A. Martin, farmer of Reporoa, claimed from A. E. Packer, a neighbouring farmer, • the sum of £50 as general and speeial damages allegedly incurred as a result of the loss of the sheep. Aftei* hearing evidence, the Magistrate awarded plaintiff £23 15/- on his claim. ' Mr. R. Potter aTpeared for the plaintiff and Mr. E. Roe for defendant. Mr. Potter after hriefly outlining the case put the .plaintiff in the box. * George Alexander Martin said that late in I%cember or early January, he went over his property and was advised by two Maoris working for him that a dog had heen worrying his sheep on that morning. The dog had escaped in the direction of Mr. Packer's farm. There were a numher of sheep lying about killed and injured. He and the two boys had first gone to Mr. Duncan's property looking for the dog hut had not found it, and had then proceeded to Packer's house. No one was at home but the dog was tied up outside and was wet and covered in blood. "Willing to Pay Damage Plaintiff then went towards the store where he found Packer and took him back to inspect the sheep, which his dog had destroyed. Defendant had taken it for granted that his dog was responsible and was at the time willing to pay the damage, though he asked Martin to he lenient with him. Martin valued the sheep killed at £10 and the lambs which subsequenfrly died as a result of losing their mothers at £15, though he considered they were worth much more for slaughtering purposes. The claim for £25 for general damages, he said was to compensate for the detrimental effect the worrying had on the remainder of the flock. Witness also stated that defendant had promised to destroy the dog, hut instead had sent it to Te Aroha. Questioned hy Mr. Roe witness said that Packer had sold five of the carcases to the Maqri boys at 5/- ner head, the other six found at the time beins: buried. The remaining 13 sheep killed, were found in the drains about two days later. "Too Much Noise" At a later date, plaintiff said, Packer refused to pay for the sheep. Ben Piripi and William Reta, two Maoris who were working on drains in the vicinity, stated that they had seen the dead sheep and identified the dog as that belonging to Packer. ' W. A. Parnliam, sheep farmer of Reporoa, gave evidence as to the .value of the sheep and described plain- ' tiff's claim as verv reasonable. Mr. Roe called Packer who said that he had left the dog tied up when he .went to the store. When Martin had told him, backed hy the Maoris, that his dog had worried plaintiff's sheep he had gone with him to inspect the damage. as he thought it possible that it might have heen his dog. No Blood on Dog He had gone all round the farm and had only found nine sheep dead. The Maoris had agreed. after diseussion. to pay Martin £1 for the carcases of the worried animals. Witness had told Martin that if I he^was so sure that it was witness's I dog which Kad worried the sheep, he I would destroy it. and settle with him I ■for the damage done. js When he had got home he had ■ found his dog tied up: it was wet. hut I there was no blood on it. He had used I the dog that morning and that would I account for its wet condition. £ Some months later defendant had ■ eome to him and asked him whether I he intended pavine- f0r the sheep. ■ Defendant said he told Martin that I he did not eonsider thern was suffieiput ■ evirlenee that his dop- was resnonsihle, ■ whereirnon nlaintiff had r^nlied that ■ he had tn nav "nr he would ruh the ® dirt in." He had subsequently receiv- B "(1 a snwmons. M -Replvinp* to Mr. Potter, defendant® said that the dog had onlv heen out ® of his sight for about 10 to 15 min- 1 utes that morning and he did not con- 9 sider it possible that it eould have ® worried Martin's sheep. He also said® that there were a numher of dogs® like his in the district. ® The Magistrate, reviewing the case, H . said that on the morning in question® the Maoris had seen a disturhance Hj among the sheep and had seen the H dog although at the time it was stand- H ing still. It must have been something Hj that disturbed the flock. Their cm-H ployer then came along and found® some of his sheep dead and others® injured. All three visited Duncan's® place, and then proceeded to defend-H ant's house where they found a dog,® wet and covered in blood. ® The only inference that he eould® draw was that this was the dog whicl® had been among the sheep. His Wor-® ship also referred to the admission of®| defendant that it was possible that^B his dog might have done -the damage®| He considered the Maoris' evidence^E was trustworthy, and the only con-^B clusion was that defendant's dog vas®| the one concerned. SS