Resident Magistrates Court, TE AROHA.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 463, 16 April 1890, Page 2

Resident Magistrates Court, TE AROHA.

THURSDAY, 15th APRIL, 1890. (Before H. W. Nortl.croft, Esq., II.M!) Judgment Summonses. Collins v. McPiko ; Do. v. Booth. The hearing of these cases wliicli bad been adjourned from last Court day was further adjourned till 27th May. H. W. Baskiville v. Roycroft; claim £22 14a lOd.. > I ;

Defendant was ordered to pay the amount in monthly instalments of£l. The first payment to be made on 28th April. ' ; Sheep worrying : Cornes and Hyde v. A. Gabolinscy ; claim £5 for loss of sheep killed, and £lO injury done to others. /Mr Meldrum for plaintiffs, and Mr Dyer for defendant. 1 1 Alfred Cornes (sworn) deposed:!Am a butcher in Te Aroha. My partner i» Wm. Hyde. With him possess a farm at Waihon. We are accustomed to keep sheep on it. Between 29th March and 7th April we lost certain, sheep. Heard frorii iny partner the sheep were getting worried by Gabolinscy’s dog., I know of 10 of our sheep being Worried. Seven more are missing. The marks on the sheep killed were identical; their throats were torn and the sideof the shoulderciit. I did not see the dog chasing the sheep. Found others of the sheep scattered over the country. .’ I have every reason to believe the.sheep were in lamb, and that they were injured by being chased by the dog.; Have since sold the sheep because of their being chased. . Consider 10s each a fair price for the ten sheep killed, and £3O a reasonable sum for the injury done to the others. Crpss-examined by Mr Dyer : Part of our land is fenced with wire. In some places the fences are broken down. In one part there is no fence at all. The sheep at these places can go-in and out as they like. By Mr Meldrum : We never had ..any trouble with the sheep till the dog came. .. ’, ..?/ t

Wra. Hycle, deposed : I am a butcher at Te Aroha, in partnership with Alfred Cornes. We possess a farm at Waihou; and ./have some! sheep! running' there. Between 29th March and 7th April, we lost certain sheep that were killed by .doqs, and a number more were missing. Found nine dead and 1 died after Icing' found. ThoEe’ /missing were found scattered about. 'All of the Sheep killed bdre marks of" being worried. They were bitten about the throat ?aHd 5 shoulders. The marks of worrying, were all the same. I did not see the dog chasing the] sheep, We never had any previous trouble with jJßertiember the .March,, Was going for my horse ..which was in Mr; Parr’s paddopk;) , Saw a in the .paddock with a dog. on it. Tlie dog pulled it down. It Was a kind of a yelloW dog. Had seen it before at Mr Gabolinscy’s

house- Have seen the same dog chasing sheep since then, but do not remember the day. Am sure it was the same dog. Saw only the one sheep killed. ;■ - John Parr deposed : Remember the 29th of March. Was at heme that day. Remember seeing Comes and Hyde’s sheep on Mr Campbell’s property at WaitoA. Did not see. a dog chasing glieep that day, but saw a sheep that had been worried. It was Mr Hyde’s sheep,? It was nearly' dead and was torn' about the shoulder and neck. Saw a dog a short distance from the sheep that was worried. It was Gabolinscy’s dog. Knew it to be bis because I had always seen it about his place and was tcld it was his. It was a dark brown or liver-coloured dog. ... Thomas Rowe, deposed ; I reside at Waitoa. Know Comes and Hyde’s farm, and that they kept sheep there. Hyde took me over to a certain piece of land and showed me a sheep that had been worried. Have Been Gabolinscy’s dog chase sheep. Have lost 50 myself within two years. The last one was abont six weeks ago. Dia not the dog kill iti Saw Gabolinscy’s dog on the place chasing the sheep. Knew the dog too well. The only dog I have seen chasing the sheep within the last two months was the one mentioned. This closed the plaintiff’s case. For the defence Mr Dyer called Albert Gabolinscy, who deposed : Am defendant in this action. I have a dog in my possession, a dark chocolate coloured pointer. Have never heard any complaint about the dog worrying sheep before this case. Hyde came to me about 30th March, and said he wanted 16s from me as my dog had killed two of his lambs. He said the dog was a yellow one, and I told hint I had not a yellow dog. I keep my dog on the chain, and have kept him chained since I got him from Matamata four or five weeks ago. Heve only let him off the ehain twice during three weeks, about ten minutes at a time, to get a feed at the butchers, and then chained him up in the stable again. On two occasions had him in the bar all night. Once was a Good Friday evening. Know the witness Parr, I asked him if he told Hyde my dog killed the sheep. He said he had not done so; I did not see the sheep .that was worried. Plaintiff's sheep are all over the plac& G. Scarborough, D. Scelly, and D. Forbes also gave evidence for defendant, after which Mr Dyer spoke at considerable length for the defence, dwelling principally on the discrepancy in the evidence given, us to the colour of the dog by which the sheep had been killed.—Mr Meld min replied. •; /

The Bench held that it was proved that the worrying of the sheep that were killed had been done by the defendants dog, but that no evidence had been produced in support of the plaintiff’s claim for special damages for injury done to the sheep that had not been killed. Jadgment was given for L 5, the value of the sheep killed, and L 5 13s costs.