SHEEP-WORRYING CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 56, 24 July 1912, Page 5

SHEEP-WORRYING CASE.

INTERESTING LAW POINT. A nice point of law involved in a sheep worrying case was decided at the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Fred Old, a farmer residing at Sentry Hill, sued Frank Salway, of Bell Block, for £l2 10s for the loss of a cattle dog, shot by the defendant. According to the plaintiff's story, the clog accompanied him and his wife to New Plymouth, and on the return journey to Sentry Hill they passed Sahvay's farm. Just before reaching the farm the dog, which had been running behind the Waitara coach, took an alternative route home to that of his owner, turning up Connett's road. Evidence, he contended, showed that while passing the defendants farm the dog was fired at by defendant or his son. The animal continued on its course, and after proceeding some three miles was caught up by defendant's son, and despatched with a shot gun. A few days after Salway came to plaintiff's farm and identified a collar that he was in possession of as belonging to his (Old's) dog, which he explained he had destroyed for wqrryiii" his sheep. ' ° The defence was that the dog had been caught in the act of worrying sheep, and shot, although not actually killed until shortly afterwards. About 6.30 a.m. on the day of the occurrence a do<* was observed worrying the sheep. The Sal ways waited about the property throughout the whole day, when the same dog returned, and again attacked the sheep. This time they were able to fire twice at it. The animal was wounded, but made up the road. It was lost sight of for a short time by the Salways, but from information received defendant's son got on the trail, and, mounting a bicycle, he overtook it some three miles farther up the road. In order to put it out of- its misery the dog was then summarily despatched. 'The defendant contended that to all intents and purposes the dog was destroyed (within the meaning of the act) at 'the time the first shot was fired.

For the plaintiff, Mr. J. C. Nicholson contended, on the other hand, that this action would only apply where the ultimate destruction of the dog took place immediately after its apprehension. Then, and only then, could the killing be held to be one and the same transaction. Defendant had no right to shoot the dog on a public road. Summing up, the magistrate (Mr. A. Crooke, S.M.) said that it was not for Salway to decide that the do? was to be shot on the public highway. After the dog had been shot and had left the faim there was no longer anv fear of the sheep being endangered. The proper course for Salway would have been to have found out the owner, and left him to despatch the dog. if necessary. Dealing with the plaintiff's contention that at the time the bulk of the worrying took place early in the morning the animal was tied up at home, his Worship said he was satisfied that Old's dog was the dog that was detected among the sheep. If there was another dog, where had it got to? Defendant, however, was not justified in shooting the dog the second time when it was on the road. There was nothing to show that it would Siave died from_ the effects of the first shots, or that it was seriously injured. It was clear, however, that the dog that was shot was the animal that worried the sheep. Plaintiff was entitled to win his case on the point of law that the mere fact that it was wounded did not, ipso facto, constitute its destruction. Judgment would be given for £lO i and costs. '

Regarding the counter-claim for £3O odd for loss and damages arising out of the worrying, the magistrate -remarked t!hat, as he had found that plaintiff's dog was the couse of the trouble it would seem that it only resolved itself into a question of the amount of the damages. His Worship set down the hearing of the counter-claim for the next civil sitting of the court. Mr.'Quilliam appeared for Salwav.

A number of witnesses were called in the case, which lasted practically the whole day.