ALLEGED SHEEP WORRYING.

Shannon News, 25 February 1927, Page 3

ALLEGED SHEEP WORRYING.

CLAIM FOE DAMAGES. A claim for £r7G 6s arising out of the worrying and killing of sheep by two dogs' occupied the attention of Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court, at Palmerston on Tuesday. The plaintiff was Richard Matthew Lange, of Shannon, farmer, and defendant Thomas Dalzell, of Makerua, fiaxmiller. Mr Graham, of Feilding, appeared for plaintiff and Mr Cooper for defendant.

The statement of claim set out that, on or about May 12, 192 G, two. dogs belonging to defendant worried certain sheep belonging to plaintiff and caused material damage; wherefore he claimed £44 as the value of 22 ewes destroyed, £6 Gs as the value of two purebred Romney rams killed, £SO as the value of 25 ewes that had been worried and considered a total loss, £75 as the estimated loss through ewes heavy in lamb having been hunted and unnaturally disturbed, and £1 for labour in repairing a fence —a total of £176 Gs.

In outlining the claim Mr. Graham, stated that, on May 12th, plaintiff found, on returning to his farm after a short absence, that two pig dogs had been worrying his sheep, having killed quite a number and injured others, in addition to having torn down a length of fence. He had gone out and caught one of the dogs and shot it. Next day, with a neighbour, he had caught the other dog and had held it. A search of the property had shown the extent to which the dogs had done damage, but, in addition, on mustering the sheep, it was found that some were missing, probably having ben forced into fhe river and drowned. Enquiries leading plaintiff to believe that the dogs were the property of defendant, plaintiff had interviewed him and had been told that this was so, but later defendant had stated that they belonged to his son. The remaining dog had been shot by an employee of defendant, acting on the instructions of the latter. Three days later plaintiff gave defendant an estimate of the damage, saying that the amount was £IOO, but later found that it was much more, crutching time revealing that over 50 sheep had been injured. .Evidence to this effect was given by plaintiff, while an employee testified to the injuries that had been found at crutching time.

The defence, stated Mr. Cooper, was an absolute denial of ownership of the dogs. Undoubtedly two dogs had worried plaintiff's sheep and killed some of them, but the animals responsible had not belonged to defendant. Evidence would be brought to show that one was the property of defendant's eldest son and that the other belonged to a man named Woods. Some days prior to May 12th two young men — employees at the mill of which defendant was manager —had taken the dogs out hunting and had lost them, the next that was heard of their whereabouts being when plaintiff made the discovery about his sheep. ' Defendant in evidence, substantiated counsel's remarks. He denied that he had ever told plaintiff or led him to believe that the dogs belonged to him. Right from the start plaintiff had been told the true position. To. Mr. Graham: He denied that he hatT ever received a letter from plaintiff enclosing an account for the loss sustained by the latter. The court at this stage adjourned until next Tuesday.