DISTRICT COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume XII, Issue 975, 21 September 1878, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Hamilton, September, 19. \ (Befor His Honor Judge Fenton.Jf I IN BANKRUPTCY - . | /&&'« ,J^l In re Edwards aPj|dward|i#W| Kinerney, aud EdwSi^ sMrart| Binkrupta, for who^|Mr Ifl M| Hay appeared, receded the ? ir|dis^ charge. Iv the case of Saundersonjv. lnnis, plaintiff did nob appear, and-a nonsuit was recorded. ...:..,... . DIiSTROYING_A_. DO_a _ Beaiichamp v. Seddon'. — Thisjwas an action to recover the value of a dog, alleged' to have' 'been shot by the defendant, Claim £50. Mr Hay appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr O'Neil for the defendant. E. H. Beauchamp sworn, stated that he was the owner of a black and tan sheep dog. I last saw it alive on the T4th or 20th of Jane. When I, next saw it, on the Bih July, it was lying dead iv a ditch on the road side, not on Mr Seddon's side of the road but on the other. Mr S. Seddon, jnr., on the 24th July, acknowledged to having shot the dog, which was a valuable one. I valued it a £50, and would not have taken that sum for ib. Cross examined : I have had it two and a-half years, and have been offered £25 for it. After he. was shot he was, worth no more than his skin. :;■-, - . To the Court : Mr Seddon said he shot the dog near his house. Mr ■. Hay objected jto his client answering the question, whether it was running among sheep ? As under rule 106, such defence must be pleaded, as it is a statutory defence being based on the Injury by Dogs Act, 1865, and the plea was the general issue, namely, not guilty. If the plea had been " not guilty " by statute, and the statute specified, the evidence might have been admitted, but not under a simple plea of not guilty. Mr Hay quoted a number of authorities. The objection was overruled by the Court, who thought the" words " statutory defence " must be interpreted 7 to mean such cases as those m which the statute says, •'This 'statute may be pleaded m defence and the special matter given m evidence." Witness continued : I did not see 'the dog running among sheep. „ Charles Wood, sworn, deposed to the missing of the dog on the 24th July; was with plaintiff w,hen he ask^d defendant if he had shot the dog. He did not answer. Plaintiff said he had found the dog lying dead m defendant's ditch, near his gate. Defendant then said he shot the dog, but did not know whose. dog it was, but that he made a point ot shooting all dogs that came upon the farm; j Defendant said .he ; was not among the sheep when lie shot him but near the house. The dog was worth between £30 and £50. James H. Wood, sworn, gave similar evidence to previous witness. Peter Walker, sworn, stated that he understood, from the conversation, that defendant admitted the dog was near the house, and not among the sheep when shot. Francis Crawford deposed, he was m the employment of. Mr S. T. Seddon. The morning after the dog was shot, he psked the defendaut did he shoot anything last night. He said yes. I asked him if he knew the ddg. He said ; ' he thought it must be Beauchamp's dog. The dog was then still alive, lying m bhe ditch m front of the gate. Defendant told me to take something and put him out of his misery. I knocked him on the head with an adze, To Mr O'Neill : Mr Seddon keeps sheep around the house. His pure bred sheep were just where the dog was shot. He has suffered from dogs hunting his sheep. When I saw the dog m the ditch, I knew he would not recover. Defendant ordered me to kill him. It was a work of mercy to do so. When I killed him, he was past recovery, and worthless. John Harrison, deposed to the dog- being m his opinion worth £20. Peter Coleman, deposed to the deceased being a first-class dog, and without any disposition to attack sheep. Tallied him at £30. Samuel Seddon. sworn, said I am employed by my father. About 7.30 p.m., there was a great row outside, I went out to see what it was, and found a dog runn ; ng among a flock of ewes m the paddock near the house. I was .about 100 yards away. He was a black dog. I did not know who he belonged to. I had been after him several times. The dog made off and I thought him gone. About 11 o'clock, we had gone to bed, and the row began again. I drew up* the window, and oould distinctly hear the sheep running and making a noise. I went out and found the sheep penned m a corner, the dog was a short distance from them. I tried to get a shot ab him and couldn't. He ran* round the building, and I shot hiui m the yard. There were sheep there too m an open pen. The dog was close to the sheep m tho pen. He ran away and I got another shot at him. He ran up the roadway leading to the public road. I left him there. The next morning he was gone. The dog was very thin. I don't know his age, or his value. He was valueless when m the ditch. I never denied shooting the dog, but said I was sorry for shooting a friend's do^\ lie was a few yards from the

sheep when I shot him. I believe I had lost sheep through that dog. To Mr Hay : I won't swear I did E QOtg^v^e^^had not been runl bino^^mwP'ie sheep, I meant that iWP Waa \ ri 4?°^'ty 'damaging ahpee IJ^t the tjimw l bW him penning the Ifsheep up»t pa. li tvobert^ddo^eposed to folio wI lug his br^rletfMC/of the house. It |PWBsUljo'cloc||^The sheep were m a corner ■fnfhtened by the dog, which was close up to them. I k Dave - heen- after ,J;he. same dog myself on previous nights, and tried to kill him, because he was after the sheep,. I .know it wasihe same dog j I was after ; I wont" swear it, but i I believe it was the 'one. I have no f. doubt it was the same that I chased. , / His "Honor stated that he would reserve' the point of law raised by L Mr Hay, as after briefly considering . it, he thought that it was an objec- : tion that m-'g'it be fatal to the case. He must confess^ his sympathies | were the other way, but he could L not allow that to interfere with his ( fair interpretation of the law as it stood. It seemed -to him that the { objection reminded him of a j;ame . chess where" the most skilful pltfyW won, but as far ; as he possibly "could . he would endeavour to make the Court one of equity rather than . law. ..,;, , H . ' _. . L Judgment was reserved till next Court day. ! | RE JOHN GAGE. John Gage came up for his dia- > charge. Mr jHay appeared for the bank- ; nipt,, and applied for a disoharge, ; which was granted.