The Farmers Friend.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 50, 28 February 1914, Page 5

The Farmers Friend.

|“A WORKER A N D A MATE.” CLAIM FOR A DOC. | The Court was occupied for a long time yesterday in hearing the case of Gooch (ilr Spratt) v. Zurcher (Mr , Rutherfurd) a claim for the return of a dog, or failure that for £SO, value of jt he (.log. I In opening the case Mr Spratt said the dog was a good worker, and in addition was a mate to plaintiff, being able to do some tricks. I Charles Gooch, farmer, Makahu, gave evidence that, he owned a dog named Sandy. It was a prick-eared dog, with long hair and a short bushy tail. Jt was about three years old. The dog was bred by Harry Collins, of Stratford, a nephew of witness. Witness bought the dog from Collins as a pup. Witness last had the dog on September 15th. Later on Percy; Collins, a nephew, said that a farmer close to Stratford had the dog, and this farmer turned out to be Zurcher. On October 31st witness went down [to the farm and claimed the dog. When [witness saw the dog it gave a bark ot recognition. In addition to work the I dog could do some tricks. If put on a horse he would inake an endeavour [to take the reins. He would also sit [up in a gig like a human being. When

travelling along the road the dog would run in front of the gig, and if be saw a motor car coming he would run hack quickly and howl. Witness could

not say exactly what the breed of the dog was. ’There was a touch of beardie in him. His mother was a sheep dog and his father a cattle dog. He was used on cattle. In the morning witness could get a cup of tea ready while the dog got in the cows. It was the Best dog ho had had during the fifteen years be had been farming. The sum of £SO was a fair price for the dog. Since the loss of the'dog witness had had to go himself for his cows, the operation sometimes taking an hour. There was a scar on the dog’s forehead, and witness felt it when he claimed the dog at Znrcher’s. By Mr Rutherfurd : When bought the dog would he about two months old. When he went to Zurcher’s he had had a few drinks, but he was quite capable of identifying the dog. No member of the police force approached him and told him that if he did not go home he would be locked up. At this point the dog was produced and after examination plaintiff said that the dog was not his and was not the one ho had seen at Zurcher’s.

Edward Mason, veterinary surgeon, said he had examined Zurcher’s two dogs; and the one in Court he fixed to be over three years old, and under .TV vears.

George Peterson, farmer, Strathmore, said that in 1912 lie was registrar of dogs for the district And registered two dogs—belonging to the plaintiff Goocli—one black and white and one yellow. One dog was registered in February, 1911. The dog in

ourt was not the one registered for ouch in 1911.

Edward Snowball, farmer, Makahu, a near neighbour of Gooch’s, said he had seen the dog working. It was a good bush clog. A good dog on which

a man placed all his reliance would be worth about £‘2o. If Gooch said the dog in question was worth £SO witness would not contradict him. Ry Air Rutherford: Witness visited Gooch and took three dogs with him. These dogs worried Gooch’s dog. Gooch said iie had not seen his dog since. Mr Rutherford: Your dogs might have killed it.

Witness: The little shaking he got would not hurt him.

Percy Collins, stablekeeper, said Zurcher came into his stable one clay with Gooch’s dog in his possession. That was about 2,1 months ago. This closed the case for plaintiff.

Anton Zurcher, farmer, Toko Road, said he thought he saw Gooch’s dog last August. The dog in Court resembled Gooch’s dog in some ways. To the best of his belief the dog in Court was one year and eight months old. About the middle of last October witness had his dog in town and Harry Collins saw it at Davey’s stables. Collins tried to get the dog to sit on a horse’s back, but it fell off at once. Collins was suggesting that witness

was not the owner of the dog. On November 7th witness received a letter from Mr W. G. Malone calling on him to give up possesion of the dog. Witness rang up Mr Malone, who asked him to call on him when in town, but witness did not do so. The next thing he heard of was the summons. Ry the Court: Witness had only seen Gooch’s dog once at a distance of about three chains. Witness did not now have Gooch’s dog in his possession nor did he ever have it. Martin Steiner, farmer, Rowan, said that on June loth he saw the dog in Court on Zurcher’s farm. On

'October 11th witness was present when I Harry Collins tried to make the dog I ritle a horse. The dog would not sit oti the horse. Witness was fairly sure that the dog in Court was the one he saw at the stables-.

William Donaldson, farmer, Toko, ■Road, said he lived on the property (adjoining Zurcher’s. He was on and (off Zurcher’s place very often. The (dog in Court was the only one of (similar color that Zurcher had.

1 By Air Spratt: Zurcher had had this Idog for the past twenty months. Had | never heard of Zurcher losing a dog. I William Buzz iff gave similar evidence.

Oliver Roberts, employed by Huzziff, said he was constantly at Zurcher’s. The dog iu Court was the only one of the kind at Zurcher’s.

The S.M., in summing up, said it seemed plain that both parties had dogs of a similar color, and that either, seeing it only once, might he mistaken. Plaintiff was non-suited, with costs 10s, counsel’s fee £2 10s, and ttit-* nesses’ expenses £5 13s 9th