R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3933, 8 October 1891, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON—THURSDAY,

(Before Colonel Roberts, R.M.)

CIVIL CASES. A. .Gardner v. J. Blackwood.— Claim'&t 0s 2d, for wages owing. Mr PownalFfor the plaintiff 1 . Judgment for the amount with Court costs, 7s. A. Hathaway v. M. Bernard.— Claim for rates, £8 6s. Judgment for amount, with costs, 6s. DESTRUCTION OF FOWLS.

The can in which Arthur R. Bunny claimed the sum of £3 from L. J. Hooper for the destruction of certain fowls by the defendant's dog, was proceeded with.

Mr Pownall appeared for the de» fendant.

J. Jtalpit, sworn, deposed: Some time ago I saw Mr Bunny's fowls, some of which had been injured. I was informed that a dog had got amongst the poultry on July 26th. If the damage had been done to my fowls as to Mr Bunny's I should think a fair compensation would be 80s. By Mr Pownall: At the time the fowls were killed eggs were about a shilling .a dozen. I have made no calculation as to the value of their eggs. I could give no exact value for tha fowls. They might be bought at auction for 2s or 3s each.

Re-examined by Mr Bunny : The value of the fowls would be increased on domesticated. D'Arcy deposed: I know the defendant. I bad a conversation with bim about hiß dog. He said he had been giving it a thrashing as it had been killing bis fowls. Tbe dog was an ordinary setter. By Mr Pownall: From the description giv«n me I have every reason to believe This is the dog that visited Mr Bunny's. Arthur R. Bunny, sworn, deposed: I am the plaintiff in this cace. On the morning of the 26tb July I was informed by my man that a dog had been in my poultry yard, and had killed someand injured other fowls. Be captured the dog &nd I went and saw it. I looked at the collar and found Mr Hooper's name upon it. I sent for Mr Hooper and he came down and said the dog was his. He asked what was the value of the fowls, and said he would give me a cheque for the amount. He advised me to thrash the dog to prevent it coming again. I did not do this. The defendant saw the fowls. I subsequently wrote to the defendant, claiming the sum of 30s, but have not heard from him since.

By Mr Pownall: I did not mention ito Mr Hooper when I met bim what I considered the value of the fowls. This was the case for the plaintiff.

Mr Pownall submitted that it was altogether too remote for the Court to fix a damage for the eggs which were to b&ve been laid by the fowls destroyed. The fowls had undoubtedly been killed, but a few shillings should have settled the whole affair. He maintained further that the fowl yard of tbe plaintiff waß not properly protected. Jj. J. Hooper, sworn deposed : 1 am the defendant in tbis action. I was sentfor by Mr Bunny on tiunday, the I went over to his place was not at home. I saw him on the paddock and he said he was out rabbit shooting. He showed me thi fowls killed and my dog, and I told him if be would tell me the value of the fowls I would pay him. He then said be would consult hiß housekeeper. On the following day I received an account for 80s, which I considered altogether too high. I thought the f o #J* were worth about 4s 6d. After receiving the surimons I took Mr White do wu to' value the fowls. We sVlf'tbe where the fowls were Spnfiped. The'girl said the'fowjs if"? kept shut up all night. We then measured the hole from which the fowls came out and found it eight inches square. We also measured the dogs and found them thirty-twp jnches round the chest. The housekeeper said the dog must have gone ip through the hole. *By ?jlr Bunny : I have b§d the dogs I measured for about 2 years. 1 have only two. I have poultry of ray opn, some of which have been killed by another dog of mine.l baye had comSlaipts f rom another person about my og killing poultry. I have never been palled upon to pay the damages jt has done. I do not sonsider thf fowls of Mr Bunny worth more than Is 6d a piece. Then again the girl uid tbe fowls bad been eaten. 1 would haye given 4s 6d for the fowls -i. j * , li ~ ot hev were destroyed, killed at the uu.~ . . I have not taken into conßiue. rtie oneg&Jfi of damage done to the fellf PSt "14M: , If ?f preventing the fowls frojp laving i* £il bunkum. I was willing to pay « fair orice, but not the amount agked (oU l dii not "k Mr Burn, it J

coald go and see the fowls with Mr White. I might have asked most people if I could go, but I would not ask him. By Mr Pownall: The dog referred to by Mr Bunny has killed Done of my fowls andl ha?e had no complaints about it. The Bench gave judgment for the plaintiff for 12s, with Court costs 18s, and witnesses' expenses 24a.