S.M. COURT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 208, 29 September 1903, Page 4

S.M. COURT

MONDAr, September 28th.—Before Mr. B. L. i Stanford, B.M. UHDEFENDED CITIL CABES. Judgment for plaintiffs were recorded 1 as follows: — S. J. Smith v. G. Mottram; claim, £l2 12s 4d and costs £1 19s, and solicitor's fee 15a 6d. Mr Grey (Wilson and Grey) for the plaintiff. Dr, Walker v. A. Phillips; claim, £lO 14s and costs 15a, and solicitor's fee 15i 61 Mr T. S. Weston (Weston , and WfS'on) for the plaintiff. , Several other cases were settled out < of Oourt, adjourned, or struck out, DOG SHOOTING CASE. John Bishop, farmer, of Koru road, sued Rober 1 , Davies, farmer, of Oar-riDgton-road, for the recovery of two dogp, aa English cattle dog valued at £5, and a fox terrier valued at £5, and in default of recovery the plaintiff claimed £lO. Mr Quilliam (Govett and Q liUiim) for the plain'iff and Mr T, S. Weston (Weston and Weston) for the attendant. Mr Quilliam called, Mau l Mary Bishop, wife of John Bishop, who stated that on August 5 <h Davies aud Miss Blanchett cimeto the house, aud Davies stated that the dogs had been worrying sheep, and he intended to get them identified as sheep worriers and t hoot thf m. Davies took one dog away and Miss Bhnchett the other. They stated th«y were going up to Mr Blanchett'd to get the dogs identified. Believed the dogs were subsequently shot. The dogs were registered, Did not give authority to take the dogs away. By Mr Weston: Was sure the drgs were registered. Never gave them authority to take them. The little terrier was her own property. The otiher belonged to her hmband ; it was a good dog to work. Never heard complaints abjut their dogs worrying theep. Eva B'acchett stated she and defendant took away two dogs. Afterwards saw the terrier shot. John Biahop, farmer at Koru, seated on August 29 in Davies saw him and said, " I have come to you about the dogs and B'ancheU's sheep." Witness asked if the dogs had killed any sheep Davies replied " No," but they had chased the sheep. Witness said he was willing to pay any damage, The dogs were, registered. Was offered a cow for the cattle dog, Weston: Paid the dog tax to Mr Tippins. Mr Okey had complained to him about a dog some months ago, and he destroy id that dog. l'his was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Weston called the defendant, who stated that he went to Bishop's place and complained about the dogs worrying theep. Mrs Bishop called the three dogs, and Miss Blanchett identified a cattle dog and a fox terrier as the sheep worriers on Blanchett's property. Mrs Bishop was quite willing that the cattle dog shou'd be shot at once, but witness said he would have to take it away to get it identified. He tock the two dogs away, and as they were identified he shot them. He shot a dog previously which he had seen at Bishop's house. By Mr Quilliam: Ho hid some sheep running on Blacchstt's farm. Eva Blanchett gave evidence that sbe saw the cattle dog and the fox terrier among the on tbeir farm on August 10th. Nj-xt morning Mrs Bishop gave them full power to take the dogs away and destroy them, and stated the dogs had not been home the previous day. By Mr Quilliam : Mrs Bishop told them the terrier had belonged to her dead child. H. J. Blanchett, farming above Koru, said Davies was a neighbour, On August 4th he saw Bishop's two ■ dogs worrying his sheep, and afterwaids five dead sheep were found. Tbe dogs worn afterwards shot. He aLd Bishop bad a t , llr, but no arrangement as to damage wag ai rived at. By Mr Quiliiim : The sLcep on the farm belonged to witness and Mr H. Okey, and there were some there balonging to Davies. Did not shoot the dogs him&elf. Frederick Hartison stated he caught Bishop's dogs in the act of worrying | ihe sheep. Told Mr Okey about thb : worrying. The fox terrier worried the j = sheep and the cattle dog was b.ikiug. | Valued tho cattle dog at 10s. ' By Mr Quilliam : Had cattle dogs of j J his own, but he would not care to sell ] them. C. T. Mills, Clerk of tbe Taranaki County CVui.dl, guve evidence es to | registration. I Afcr co'.'.r.sol hid addressed, His Wor.-hip said be had a doubt about Mr Bishop being able to sue for his wife'i dog, but he had no doubt that ■he dogs bad been improperly sbot, sf tbe hw laid it down that tin dogs should ba shot in the acb. Judgment would be fcr £5 for the cattle dog, with total costs £1 19s.