RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1528, 6 July 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine— Monday July 5,1886.

Before H. 0. S. Baddeley, Eaq., 8.M., Dr Fish, and B. H. Postlelhwaite, , W. H. Moore, and A. H. Esq., J.P.’s. ' CIVIL CASES. Geraldine Dairy Factory v. R. O. Bowden—Claim £7 16s.—Defendant did not appear. W. Coltman, Secretary to the Company, proved the amount being due for calls and interest. Judgment for the plaintiff. E. Woffendin r. T. Farrell—Claim £7 15 J , the value of 31 crossbred lambi at Sapor head, which plaintiff stated bad been worried by defandant’a doge. Mr White for plaintiff and Dr Foster for defendant. Plaintiff, on being sworn, said be wee the owner of land on the Pleasant Valley Road, and that on the 6th April lut be had some 440 sheep and lambs in a 45-acre paddock. On the morning of April 6th had walked round his paddock and saw a few lambs worried. He walked over the hill and saw the dog kill two lambs. He drove it way away and then went round the paddock audiouud six dead. They all bore marks of being worried, and were warm. Ho knew it was defendant’s dog. He had made corn* plaints about it, but defendant had always treated the matter lightly, declaring it was not hie dog. Defeudant bad afterwards given him £1 to square it. He had never seen the dog in the paddock again till June sth, when with a person named McMasters, he had seen her in company with a largo yellow greyhound dog worrying the lambs, but he had had several lambs destroyed. during those dates. He and his eon had skinned the lambs, and found them much bitten about the head and fore legs. When be cami

to Geraldine and asked defendant aboit the dog he said it was about the house, but when it could not be found he said it must be away with Bray, who waa

fencing for him. Defendant said it waa Hot hie dog, but Bayloy’e. Plaintiff went to Bray, and asking for the dog, Bray looked round and thea said “ She ie not here ; /she was here juat now with a large yellow dog.” To Dr Foster plaintiff stated thst ho knew it ’was defendant's dog by having seen her about, and by certain marke, which he described. He did not know Mr Bayiey’s dog. Defendant told him it was his dog 12 montb’e ago. Defendant had called at hiVhouse to look at the skins. He showed him all the skins with the exception of those he had not removed on account of their torn atate.

Herbert Wooffendin, son of the plaintiff, deposed to hating skinned several lambs between April 6th and Junfe sth, and to ' their having been bitten and worried bydogs. Hugh McMaster,» shepherd of 25 years’ standing, deposed tobeing in Woffendn’s paddock on June sth and seeing the dogs amongst the sheep. One was a blue slut and the other a large yellow dog. The slut had a lamb down and was worrying it, and the yellow dog was biting the same lamb, but afterwards left it and went and rounded up a mob, seizing another lamb. Upon his running up the doge had cleared off towards Geraldine. The value of the lambs would be about 4s or 4s 9d at the Geraldine yards then, as they were a fairish lot. [Dr Foster endeavored to show that the charge was excessive, and that at that time sheep were being sold at very low rates: as low as Is and Is 6d.l Witness pointed out that it all depended on the quality of the sheep ; very often if the ewes were old the lambs were worth far more than they. For the defence Dr Foster called Mr J. Mundell, who stated that the price of lambs from the beginning of April till the present time varied. He did not know anything about the lambs in question, but he considered if they were well fed lambs they should be worth 2s fid or 3s, McQueen, shepherd in the employ of Mr Tripp, stated that the price of crossbred lambs would be about 2s 9d ; this wa? between March and June.

J. Warner deposed to going with defendant on June 17th to look at the akins said to be taken from the worried lambe. He saw about 24 skins and the parts of three or four. They were lamb skine, and had evidently been taken off three or four months. Could not say from their appearance whether the lambs had been worried or not.

J. Conno'ly, farmer, Kakahu, deposed to going with defendant to plaintiff’s house to see the skins. Defendant had -overtaken him on the road, and had told Trim that plaintiff had said his dog bed worried the lambs. Defendant asked him to go, and lie went. Defendant never aaid his dog had done it. Plaintiff had offered to show him the skins, and then defendant bad taken no more interest in the matter, and not look it them. Dr Foster said that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the dog that worried . the sheep on June sth was'the dog that - worried them on April 6th and intervening occasions. He also hoped the Court weald aecept the evidence of Messrs Mundell and McQueen as to the value of '.he lambs, viz., 2s 6J. Mr White contended that it had been proved the lambs were worth ss,Ny Messrs Mundell 'and McQueen, who>w«\ * called for the defence, had stated that during that period lambs had'sold as high as 4. He thought it would be a very fair inference to draw that as the defendant’s dog had been there in both April and June it had got into the run of the place, and was in the habiji of going there and destroying the Jamb|. The Court held that' there was pot suffioisut evidence to show that the dog. had done all the mischief to enable the Court to give judgment for the full amount claimed, but the circumstances were very suspicious.- It was a serious thing, and most uuneighborly, to keep a dog at large in a sheep country, especially when the dog was known to have worrying proclivities. He wsuld ■i , . i • . I ..x » »»* ■

do his beet to, put a stop to it. The judgment would be for plaintiff for £1 Bs, with solicitor's fees and costs. In the following cases judgment went by default;— J.,Mundellv. J. Gurr—Claim £2 5s , for hire of buggies, etc. R, .Scott v. J. Ogilyie Claim £3 ; serrices of a horse. Williams and Sons v. G, PalmerClaim £2los 3£d ; for goods. The Court then adjourned.