ALLEGED SHEEP WORRYING.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 4988, 29 March 1895, Page 2

ALLEGED SHEEP WORRYING.

£IOO AWARDED PLAINTIFF. The District Court at Masterton, was occupied all yesterday, before Mr District Judge Martin, with the case Ure v. Nicholls, in which plaintiff, Alexander Ure, sheepfarmer, of Newman, sought to recover £l9O damages, for sliecp alleged to have been worried by two dogs belonging to J. 0. Nicliolls, tho defendant. Mr Pownall, for the plaintiff, stated the facts of the case, which were that 150 owes, valued at 12s each, were killed by the dogs alleged to belong to defendant, during the month of August last. Herbert Edwin Mowbray, sheepfarmer, residing near Newman, gave ovidence to the elfect that his sheep and sheep of plaintiff had been worried by dogs. Knew that thirteen of bis own sheep had been worried by a black and tan dog in the possession of defendant,

By Mr Bunny, who appeared for defendant: Was aware that the de- | fendant had destroyed ono of his j dogs since he had complained of the clog killing witness' sheep. Knew of sheep being worried in the neighbourhood by wild dogs. Remembered Mr Ure shooting at some such dogs. Defendant did not destroy the particular dog which bad worried witness' sheep. Witness' property adjoined that of Mr Ure, and was about three miles from that of Mr Nicholls. Last season was not an exceptionally bad one for a bush district, witness having a lambing percentage of 82. By Mr Pownall • The sheep belonging to him bad been killed by t'.ogs which had bitten them all over, but those killed on Mr Ure's property had been bitten only about the throat. Valued the sheep at lis or 12s each. Knew another dog belonging to the defendant, a sandy

one, but did not know of any other dogs tallying with the description at the defendant's dogs. Alexander Ure, plaintiff in the action, said he was tho owner of the Hock of 670 slieop in question, under a lease taken in January, 1891. In August last, some time after he had dipped some sheep, his attention was drawn to a exceedingly large number of sheep dead, having been bitten severely about the throat, and a number still alive and bleeding so badly that he had to kill them. The others had not been dead long. Had I.'cuu neglecting his Hock n liitlo, owing to some fencing ho had to do on the property. On the '2'tth of August he skinned eighty-two of tho worried slieop. Could swear that the total number worried now amounted to 150. The season when the sheep were killed was a fairly good one, and inuc better than the previous winter. Considered that the sheep worried, at the time, were fully woith li!s each, as they were good cross-bied lioniney-Lincoln ewes. The amount he claimed was £l9O. Had been in the employ of the defendant for a couple of years, when the defendant possessed dogs which were in the habit of worrying sheep,one of them having since been shot by the defendant or one of his brothers. The black and tan dog was one of the worriers, but it was not destroyed. Knew that the defendant owned the dog up till the present time. Hid not think there was another dog like it in tho district. Asked tho ant, as he was passing by witn: :.i' place, to come and see what his (defendant's) dogs had done. Defendant said" 1 will see my father as the dogs were in his possession at the time." Defendant's father said his dogs weie tied up at the lime mentioned and he would take no notice of the plaintiff's claim for the shecf worried. Witness considered that il lie received the full amount of tin present claim lie would then stand at a loss.

Uei'iiai'd Tier, laborer, working on the property of Mr Ballinger, about 40 chains from that of plaintiff, stated that on Tuesday, August 21st, witness saw two dogs with slieop bailed up. One was a black and tan and the olhoi* lemon colored. Both had bob tails. Had since seen the dogs in Mr Nicholls' possession, Was quite sure the dogs were the same. I'hey weroeasy to recognise, owing to their peculiar coloring and tails. Took a gun to fire at the dogs when they were about twelyo or fourteen yards away, but had forgotten that the gun was not loaded. The dogs then ran towards Ure and Mowbray's properties. Next day, found a slieop worried, about two or three chains from where lie saw the dogs. Knew the date to be the 21st of August, because lie put it down as lie thought it likely his employer, Mr Ballinger, might take proceedings on account of the sheep being worried, liy Mr Bunny: Saw Mr Nicholls on August 24th, with reference to the matter. Ho was quite positive about the date,

George Henry Morris, laborer, residing at Newman, stated that he was not in any way connected with either party to the present action. Knew that Mr Nicholls owned a lemon-colored dog with prick ears and a bob-tail, Saw the lemon dog and another in August last, but could not swear to the second dog. The dogs were "travelling on an errand of their own," towards his uncle's property. Tried to stop them, as be knew the danger of dogs chasing a mob of sheep near lambing time. Knew one of the dogs belonged to Mr Nicholls. George Morris, who said he was with last witness on the 21st Angus t, gave corroborative evidence, Adam Dryden, night watchman at Pahiatua, said he was working last year near Newman, and saw sheep being worried by dogs on Uro's property on the 23rd August, Tho dog that was worrying the sheep he had seen en several occasions previously with MrNicholls. He had no doubt of the dogs. No one could make a mistake about them.

Philip Baigent, sawmill-manager at Nowraan said that lie was near Ballingcr's properly in August last. Coming home Jib met two flogs on the road going in the direction of Ballinger's property. He took them' to be Mr Nicholls' dogs, bat there was no one with them. He had seen them in Nicholls' possession half-a-dozen times previously. This was the case for the plaintiff.

For the defence, Mi- Bunny called Jas. C. Nicholls, defendant, whoi stated that on Monday, 20th August, ho .wont to a bushfalling camp at tho back of his property and took his dogs with him. Had tbo black! and tan dog for four years, and the I I light coloured ono nino months, and' used theu for sheep. Used them as! sheep* aR d never knew of their worrying sheep. Uro had mentioned that the black and tan dog was harking at sheep, but did not bite them. Had used the dogs for sheep before and since. On the 28th August had received a request tocalland

ea Ure. Heard on 17th August ;hat the lemon coloured dog was at Minger's won-ying l sheep. A Mrs Vinson stated that the dogs which le had with bim were not the dogs iliat were sapposed to worry the ilieep. Witness was away from home y lining tho time that the worrying ' ,vas stated to have been done, briihis lather had the dogs chained nwße:lined to make any recompense onthis »round, besides which he had heard ;hat dogs resembling his were seen ibout the district. Later on Mr Ure same to the camp where witness was, and brought several men with 4 bim to identify the dogs that were worrying, but both men said the :logs were not those they had seen. On Thursday, 23rd August, witness used the dogs to catch shoep at the camp whore they were bushfelling mid in the afternoon they were tied up. Tho bushfelling camp was four, miles in a straight line from Ure's' property. The dogs were kept in the camp and taken homo from the Saturday till Monday. Only knew of ono case of sheep worrying last season, but had seen a number of stray dogs about the district, some of them bob-tailed ones. By Mr Pownall: Thoro were dogs knocking about during last winter which resembled his dogs, and he had spoken of this to Mr Ure. His own dogs were never let loose together, only when going tj«nd from the bush contract. His fSfcer bad destroyed the black and tan dog since this case arose, He was positive his dog did not do the worrying, * but to save further annoyance he had the animal destroyed. Ho had to pay damages to Mowbray and Dawson in tho winter of 1893, for sheep-worrying by his dogs, and the black and tan dog was with the one that had been found worrying. Gilbert Nicliolls, brother of the defendant, gave corroborative evi- f dence, and in cross-examination, he declined to say positively tliatduring that particular week the dogs were not let loose foi a run. Except at meal times the dogs were chained up while they were bushfelling. Richard Nicliolls gave similar evidence.

James Hardyment, a farmer in the Stirling Block, had worked for the defendant and knew both the dogs in question. He saw a dog on the Stirling Road in August last, It wassimilarinappearanceto Nicholls' dog. It was running about apparently without an owner. Duriltetlie time lie was in Nicholls' he ' never knew of the black and tan dog worrying sheep. This was provious to the worrying of Mowbray's sheep. By Mr Pownall: Tho dog he saw on the Stirling road had more black than Nicholls' dog. It had a bob tail. Jas. Finlay, settler, stated he was ' working on Burke's contract in August last. They commenced work on the 20th. The dogs were with them at the camp, and were taken into tho bush and fastened up when the men were at work. Witness corroborated tho couyersation held in the camp when tho men brought ' by Ure could not identify Nicholls' dogs as those which had been seen < worrying the sheep. Cross-examined by Mr Pownall: Witness declined to swear that the dogs were constantly tied up when the men were at work on the bush-felling contract. J Counsel having addressed the jury, His Honor in aunttfling up said the question of?»ate was fixed by defendant and his brothers on the piece of paper presented in the Court. If, however, the date on this paper was fixed a week too sooii,and this was an easy mistake to make, the whole caso was oxplaiued and a week was found in which the dogs were not accounted for. If the Jury wcro justified in believing Tier, and his evidence was clearly opposed to the defendant's, their course was clear. His Honor commented on the discrepancy between the brothers' ' evidence. On tho other hand tho witnesses for the plaintiff were all disinterested and respectable, each of them wero positivo in the identification of the dogs aa the property of defendant. The question of damages was not t disputed and the plaintiff's case was supported in tho question of damage by Mowbray, and no attempt was made to disprove what the plaintiff alleged as k> the number or yalue of the sheep, If thoy diebolieved the defendant's story that_tliQ dogs wero tied up there was'an end Ujfcie - defendant's caso. ™

The jury retired at ten minutes past eight and returned at 9,45 p.m. with a verdict for plaintiff for £75 for the 150 sheep destroyed, and £25 general damages, with costs according to scalo.