FARMERS AT LAW

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 899, 17 February 1930, Page 10

FARMERS AT LAW

CLAIM FOR SHEEP-WORRYING

MAGISTRATE GRANTS NON-SUIT Special to THE SUX RAGLAN, Saturday. A claim for £3l 4, for sheep allegedly worried by dogs, was made in the Raglan Magistrate’s Court by James Clemett, farmer, Te Akau, against Thomas and Stanley Parker. Mr. F. W. Platts, S.M., was on the Bench. Mr. Noel Johnson, for plaintiff, said four farms adjacent to each other at Te Akau were occupied respectivelv by plaintiff, Thomas Parker, and Messrs. MacDougall and Mahood. It was admitted that Thomas Parker owned one farm, and his son, Stanley Parker, worked on it. Last August Stanley Parker approached Mr. Arthur Wapp regarding a dog for mustering. Wapp said he had a blue dog which Parker could try. If he found it of use he could pay for it, otherwise he could destroy it. In September Mahood saw two dogs worrying sheep. The dogs went toward MaeDougall’s and Clemett's proi perties. Wapp also saw two dogs ■ worrying sheep on MacDougall’s farm. He shot both dogs, ohe of which was the blue dog previously handed to Stanley Parker. The other dog was supposed to belpng to a Maori. Neither dog was actually seen on Clemett’s place. Circumstantial evidence, however, would show that sheep were worired by these dogs. Since the shooting of the dogs, no worrying had occurred in the district. After hearing lengthy evidence, including that of plaintiff, who - said seven of his sheep had died through worrying, Mr. W. J. Johns applied for a nonsuit. l The magistrate said that plaintiff saw no dogs, but his neighbour had sheep- worried by dogs, which were shot, and one of the dogs belonged to Stanley Parker. No one saw the nog on plaintiff’s property. The court was tasked to conclude that the same dogs did the damage on plaintiff’s farm. Since this affair there had been other instances of worrying, including one on Clemett’s own property. While it might be possible that the dogs did the worrying, the court could not give judgment, even where the case was highly probably. There was danger in assuming fact from circumstances. There would he a nonsuit on the point that there was no evidence that the dog did the damage. Security for appeal was fixed at £lO 10s.