STRATFORD.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 January 1916, Page 3

STRATFORD.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. From Our Own Correspondent, Stratford, Yesterday. A local resident was charged with procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order. Mr. A. Coleman (of McAlister, Rutherford, and Coleman) appeared on defendant's behalf and entered a plea of guilty, saying that the offence occurred at New Plymouth races on Boxing Day Defendant and a friend struck a dividend and proceeded to the publican's booth to divide it. The order had been in force since June last, and since then defendant had behaved well. Seeing the offence occurred during the festive season, he asked his Worship to deal leniently with defendant. —Fined 10s and costs 7s. John Mounsey pleader guilty to allowing a horse to wander on the railway line at Te Wera.—Fined. 5s and costs lis. William Green was charged with disobeying an order of the Court to provide maintenance for his wife , and family.—Case" adjourned till February 25. SHEEP WORRYING. SMITH v. PETERSON. Valentine Smith, of Midhirst, farmer, sued Peter Jeus Peterson for £27, the details being: Nine sheep destroyed, £1 eash; £3 15s for damages sustained by worrying; £5 5s for depreciation of 42 sheep, and £lO general damages. The plaintiff conceded the defendant £1 for the shooting ot his dog. The defendant counter-claimed £lB from the plaintiff—£s for the value of the dog, £lO for trespass and shooting, and £3 for general damages. Mr. Truby King (Malone and King) appeared for plaintiff, while Mr. Percy Thomson represented defendant. Mr. King, in opening the case for plaintiff, said his client was a farmer at Midhirst. On November 21 Mr. George Smith, his neighbor, informed plaintiff that dogs were woVrying his (plaintiff's) sheep in the back paddock, and plaintiff went into the paddock and saw two dogs at the sheep. Plaintiff and others went after the dogs. Plaintiff asked defendant to ehoot the dog, but he refused, and thereupon plaintiff shot the dog in defendant's presence. Valentine Smith, the plaintiff, gave detailed evidence in support of his claim as outlined by Mr. King. The dog had worried his sheep on two previous occasions; defendant had refused to destroy it, and witness then shot the dog. He found nine sheep dead or dying; five others were worried and had died since. Had paid 20s each for the sheep at Hawera, and also trucking. Had always got on well with his neighbors, including defendant. Cross-examined.—The worrying took place about a mile away, at the back of the farm. The time was about 10.30 a.m. The dog was never more than two yards from him when witness was at the house, and defendant said lie would have to pay for the dog if it were shot. He did not remember saying he would take the law into his own hands. He had only known the dog for a month before the shooting. On the day of the worrying he went across to Mr. Mayhead and asked where his dog was, and lie replied that it was out with his boy, who was shooting. John Friday and Moses Phillips gave evidence in support of the claim. Mr. Thomson said it was unfortunate that two farmers should fall out owing to sheep worrying, but he was certain his client could prove that lub dog did not worry the sheep. Peter J. Peterson said he had trained the dog, and it was a well-trained cattle dog. It did not go away from home at all. Two of his neighbors kept sheep, but to his knowledge the dog had never worried their sheep. Witness assessed the value of the dog at £5, but would not sell it at any price. On the day in question, when he met plaintiff in the paddock, Smith said the dog had been worrying his sheep, and witness said that was impossible, because the dog had never left the farm. Plaintiff and witness went over to the house and he whistled for the dog, but his wife informed him that the dog had been locked up and he went to let the dog out. Plaintiff asked witness to shoot

the dog, and he refused. Plaintiff then said he would take the law into his own hands, and shot it. He informed plaintiff that he would sue for the cost of the dog. Defendant, in the course of further evidence, said that he saw the sheep next day and valued them at IBs each. Several neighbors had dogs like his. He had suffered inconvenience through losing the dog. Emma Peterson, wife of defendant, Charles Hodge,' and Charles Mayhead also gave evidence. After legal argument his Worship, in giving judgment, said the case resolved itself into one question, and that was—was the dog that worried plaintiff's sheep traced to defendant's homestead? If it was, the act of the plaintiff in killing the dog was justified in law and under the circumstances. If the story of plaintiff's witnesses were true it was one continuous action from the time the dog was found on plaintiff's farm till found and shot on defendant's farm. If, on the other hand, the story of defendant and his wife were tvue in every detail, it could not have been their dog that was found worrying the sheep, and the shooting of same could not be justified. Mrs. Peterson in her domestic duties may have omitted to notice the occurrences of that morning. His Worship was of opinion that the dog was worrying the sheep and that it ran for home. •Putting the issue as before a jury, he had to consider what witnesses he had to believe, and he found for plaintiff, and would give judgment as follows: £9 for sheep destroyed, £3 15s for damages sustained by the worrying, and £3 general damages, a total of £ls 15s. less £1 allowed by plaintiff for the dog destroyed. On the counter-claim he gave judgment for defendant, and allowed £2 6s costs and witnesses' expenses. .