SHEEP-WORRYING CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 12 July 1913, Page 6

SHEEP-WORRYING CASE.

ACTION FOR DAMAGES. LEE v. DICKASON. A oh so of somo interest to fanners was heard in. the Magistrate's Court at Master ton yesterday, when Harry W. Lee, farmer, of Werarti, claimed from Charles Dickason, station hand, of Weraiti, a sum of £49 for tho loss of eight Southdown rams and several ewes, and injury to flocks al-. k'god to have been occasioned by the ' dops of tho defendant. >lr P. L. Hollings appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Moran for the defendant. The evidence of the plaintiff went to show that in the. mouth of May he heard dogs among his sheep. He went out, and .shot two dogs, which were afterwards identified as belonging to the defendant. On the following morning he found eight of his Southdown rams, which he valued at £4 each, drowned in a creek, a ewe dead, and a number of other sheep injured. Ho attributed the drown- I ing of tlio rams to their having been worried by defendant's dogs. He had dogs himself, but these were kept, on the chaim. Nlrs Lee gave corroborative evidence. X William Cooper and W. D. Watson, sheep-farmers, deposed to having seen the skins of the sheep. They expressed the opinion that these had been worried by dogs. Joseph Morris, she?p-farmer, deposed that he had been shown certain skins by Mr Lee. These showed signs, that they had been damaged while the sh«3«r> were alive. Witness also inspected a blmd-creek. and found evidence of sheep having been driven into it by dogs. For the defence, Mr JVforan applied for a nonsuit, on the ground that the j defendant was in the employ of Mr ! MpCrae when the alleged damage was done, and lie was consequently not j responsible for the injury to the sheep. His Worship refused the nonsuit. • Mr Moran then maintained that no evidence had been given as to the ownership of the sheep. His Worship said it had been fairly well established in evidence that the sheep were the property of the plaintiff.. v \ Mr Moran then called evidence for the defence. Charles Dickason, the defendant, deposed that he was a general station hand in the employ of Mr McCrae. He owned certain dogs, which he used in the employ of Mr McCrae. On the morning of Monday, May 12th, he let his dogs off the chain, and they got away. He concluded that they had gone after rabbits. • In the afternoon, as they had not returned, he inquired from his neighbours if they had seen them. They did not return home that ' night. On the Tuesday morning, the plaintiff came over and asked if his dogs were en the chain. Witness replied that they were not. Plaintiff then said he had shot two dogs on his property. Witness went over, and saw five rams drowned in the creek on the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff said eight rams had been drowned. Witness saw two of McCrae's dogs pulling the wool off the rams in the water. Witness ask?d where his dogs were, and plaintiff said ; they were over the hill. Witness if plaintiff saw the dogs with the '"ratiis, and plaintiff replied that he did not. Witness was cross-examined at considerable length. He stated that he could not account for the five rams being in the water, unless they were driven there bv plaintiff's dogs. Bland Rayner and John Hart gave 'evidence as to the effect that worrying would have on sheep, and as to the probable caw; of plaintiff's rams getting into the water. His Worship said he had no doubt that the dogs that were shot had done most of the damage. The suggestion that the sheep had been driven into the creek by plaintiff's dogs was not tenable. His Worship Said he would not* allow damages for injury to the flock, but would give judgment for plaintiff for £!32 4fl and costs £5 16s.