Kingswell V. M'Donald.

Southland Times, Issue 1145, 21 April 1869, Page 2

Kingswell V. M' Donald.

Kingsweli had a large number of sheep destroyed by dogs, one of those dogs was traced to a M'Kenzie's house immediately a fter the slaughter of the sheep. M'Kenzie informed Kingsweli that the dog belonged to a M'Donald, who was from home, and that he (M'Kenzie) fed the animal occasionally when it came to his house. M'Kenzie admitted that there was fresh blood on the dog's nose. Another witness stated that the dog he saw chasing Kingswells' sheep (at which time he saw two dead ones, evidently just killed by dogs) was the one shown him at M'Kenzie's house ; at same time giving a minute description of the animal, which in every particular agreed with the evidence of the previous witness. All the witnesses spoke to the same dog. DECISION. There not having been evidence of the dog being ever seen among the sheep. Case dismissed with costs ! BEYIEW. One particular dog proved to have been chcting sheep. Dead sheep found immediately after. Dog not accompanied by a master. It matters not how many other dogs may have been with the one that can be proven to have been there, his owner, both in law and equity, is responsible. It is not even in law necessary to prove chasing, all that is necessary is to prove that the animal was without a master on forbidden ground, and the sheep without protection of man. There is no description of property about which the law throws its protective shield more thoroughly^ than that of sheep, and that is because it is, from its nature, so open to depredators both . biped and quadruped — it cannot be put under lock and key.