DISTRICT COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume XII, Issue 977, 26 September 1878, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

. Hamilton, Ssptembkr, 13. (Before His HonOr Judge Fonton.) [The following is the report m full of the dog-shooting case.-] * DESTROYING A DOG. -Baauohamp r. Seddou.— This was 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'Neill for the defendant. E. H. Beauchamp, sWorn : I am a settler and live at Tamahere. I was the owner of a black and tan sheep dog, I last saw it alive on the 14th of June. When I next saw it, ou the Bth July, it was lying dead m a ditch oh the road side, not on Mr Seddon's side of the road but on the other. Mr S. Seddon, junr., ou the 24th of July, acknowledged to having shot the dog, which was a valuable one. I should have depended on it for my 1 : ving. I valued it at £50, and would not have taken that sum for it. I was offered J625 for him. Cross-examined : I hare M it two and a- half years, and have been offered jg2s for.it. He was between 9 and 10 years old. I advertised the dog. I offered a reward of 10a for him. I ciri't give the name of the person who oflbred me £25 for it. To the Court : Mr Seddon said he shot the dog near his house. Mr Hay objected to his- client answering the question ; whether it was runuiiig among sheep ? As u&der 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.fcbe plea had been " not guilty" by statute, and the statute specified, the evidence might have been admitted, bufc not under a simple plea of not guilty. Mr Hay quoted a number of authorities. The objection was over rule:l by the Court, who thought the words " statutory defence" must be interpreted to raein 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 : 1 did not see the dog running among sheep. Charles Wood, sworn : lama farmer, I know the plaintiff ; I know the dog. I saw it last on the 13th June. I have not seen it since- He was missed on the 15th. I enquired of the defendant. I sa ; d dogs are lying shot right and left. I have had a dog killed. Beauchamp has had one killed. Have you seen him or has he been your way ? He gave me no answer, but shook his head. I said, oh never mind. Afterwards on the 24th July we were at the Hall, Beauchamp came up aud asked Seddon if he had killed the dog. Defendant did not answer. Plaintiff said he had found the dog lying dead m defendant's ditch m front of his gate. Defendant then said I did shoot the dog, but did not know whose dog it was, but made a point of shooting all dogs that came upon the farm. I then said, you know the dog as well I do — was he among the sheep when you shot him. lie 8 «id no. 1 said, where did you shoot him ? He said I shot him by the house. He said lie had previously . toid a white lie. The do« was working with me. He was the best dog I ever saw. He was wortk between £30 and £50. If he was mine I would not have taken £60 for him. Mr O'Neill: Would you have offered 10s reward for him when missing. Witness : I have nothing to do with the pliiiutiff, who is my cousin. J. H. H. Wood said : lam a farmer, at Tamaliere- I knew defendant and the dog. He admitted having shot the dog. On volunteer pay-day, I heard him say that he shot the dog. He said, on the evening of the loth, we found the body lying m a ditch opposite defendant's gate, the wounds wero shot -wounds. One leg was broken. It was a clean break. His head was split open with a tomahawk, but for the wound m the head, lie would have recovered. The dog was valuable. I never saw as good a dog. I value it at £50. Defendant said the dog was not amongst sheep. Cross-examined : He was an old dog. Peter Walker, sworn, stated : I am a farmer at Tamahore. I gathered from the conversation, that defendant admitted having shot plaintiff's dog near the house, and not among the sheep. He also admitted having told a white on a former occasion. Francis Crawford, deposed: I am a farmer, m the employment of Mr S. T. Seddon. I did not see defendant shoot a dog. I dont know plaintiff's dog. I saw a dog there, yellow and black. I don't know what date it was, or at what hour of night. I heard a shot go off. It seemed to be about defendant's house. The morning after, 1 asked the defendant did he shool anything last night. He said yes. I asked him if he knew the dog. He said ho thought it belonged to Beauchamp. I went an hour or two after to see the dog. He was lying m the ditch m front of the gate. He was not dead Ho was powerless. I saw some of the bones sticking out. The next evening, I wont to see him. He was still there. The next morning defendant told mo to take something and kill the dog. He was two days lying there. The next morning I struck 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 he was shot. Mr Seddon complained of dog* among hie «heop. He never said anything about this dosr When I saw the dog m the litoh, I did not think ho would recover, fie did not move a yard on the morninj? of tho 3rd day. Defendant ordered mo b kill the do#. It was an act of mercy.

As he was wounded m tho ditch, he was worthless. To Mr Hay : The wound was such that he could not not have moved. I can't say where he was shot. Johu Hacketfc, sworn : lam a farmer's man, residing at Tamahere. I am a&b customod to the management of sheepf The dog was a black and tan. A good! dog. He was an oldish, dog, worth JB2O. '§ To Mr O'Neill ij^ufiver saw^Kinff amongst sheep. Softie* time agoj^l shol' at him. I thought he ws3*sa Mafiri dogP I don't know when they c^ase to be\<good| I should think 10 years*wMld be -very ollfe tor a sheep dog. "* *f Re-examined : He was a good dog when I last saw him. I thought he waiited feeding. t It wwats t a longtime time since I shot at him. Peter Coleman, sworn : I am a butcher. I knew this dog ; he was a first-class dog, he never had a disposition to attack sheep. The dog's value was £30. X Samuel Seddon, sworn : I am employed by my father. About half-past seven there was a great row among our dogs outside. I went out to see what it was and: found the dog running amongiit a flock of ewes m a paddock at a short distance from the house. I -was about 100 yards off at that time. I could Bee it was a black dog. I have been after this dog I believe for several times. The sheep were not to be found m the morning where they had been originally. I thought the dog had made off, aud I thought no more about it. About eleven o'clock wo had gone to bed. The dogs again made a great row. I threw up. the window aud could distinctly hear sheep running and making a noise as if frightened. I dressed and wont out and fouud the sheep penned m the corner. Mr Hay objected on the ground that the defendant is relying upon the statute. Mr O'Neill , I rely upon the statute and upon everything else I can get m under the plea of not guilty. Statute Inquiries by Dog Act, 1865. Court : I allow the evidence. Examination-resumed: The dog was a short distance from the Sheep. I tried to get a shot at him and could not ; he ran rouud the building and then I shot him m the yard. There were sheep man open shed m the yard hoggets and a few ewes. The dog was close to the pen and by getting roand a 'plantation I managed to get a shot at him between 20 and 30 yards. The dog was heavily hit and I thought he would want no more, but he got up and ran up the roadway leading to the public road. At our own private road I shot again at. him about 1 chain from the gate. I was 10yds off. The dog fell. Then I got pretty close to him. I thought it was Mr Beauchamp's dog and I was very sorry as I found I had shot a friends' vog. I left him then. I thought he would be dead directly. The next morning he was gone. In the evening of the next day Crawford told me he was m the ditch. It was about 40 yards from where 1 shot the: dog first to Where I shot him a second time. He was very thin and I thought he could not be Mr Beauohamp's dog for that reason. It was certainly not a young one. When m the ditch life- -was done for. Wood and Boauchamp seemed inclined to fix a quarrel upon me. I answered at random. The sheep, were m danger from the dog. We have, I believe, lost sheep from that dog. We have had dogs lose us £60. I won't deny that I said, " The dog had not been running among the sheep." To the Court : The dog was nob among the sheep when I saw him. To Mr Hay : I saw Mr Wood on Sunday, after the dog was shot. Mr Wood then asked me if I had seen the dog. 1 did not deny, but I shook my hevl. I don't know why I shook my head. I did nob intend Mr Wood to infer anything from my shaking my head. I did not iotend him to infer that I had not seer Mr Beauchamp's dog. Mr Hay : Did you mean nothing bj shaking your head, and aro yeu m th< habit of doing so and meaning nothing ? Witness : I don't know. I didn't warn to tell Mr Wood because I thought h« would be angry. If he had questioned me much further, 1 should have confessed it. I remember a conversation with Mr Wood and others on the Cavalry pay day, oppo3it;e Q- Wynne's Hotel. I don't remember that I then acknowledged that I had told a white lie on the Sunday referred to. I understood Mr Wood to say that he asked me whether the dog was actually killing sheep, and I said he was not. I won't swear that I did not say that the dog hid nob been running amongst the sheep. I say now that the dog was not amongst the sheep when * shot him. I never saw him at my place except at that time. I understood Mi Wood to mean actually damaging sheep. I saw the dog penning the sheep up. Robert Seddon, sworn, said : I am a brother of defendant. My brother got up firab, and I followed him It was eleren o'clock The sheep were m a corner, friphtened by the dog, which was close after them. My brother gob into the same paddock ; tin do? ran into the yard. I was at the opposite end of the yard. The -dog fell at my brobhfr's first shot, and I went away, He was a few yards off the sheep. They were frightened. [ have been after the satna dog myself on previous nights, and tried to kill him, because he was after the sheep. To Mr Hay: I think it was about June 10 ; the moon was just past the full, I know it was the name dog I wa3 aftir. I won't sweat it, but I believe it w»3 the same one. The sheep are pub up at night. I can't say whether the snoop were m a sap^rate pen or not. We got up because we heard the sheep running Hi 3 Honor stated bhat be would reserve the point of law raised by Mr Hay, as, afber briefly considering it, he bhougnt it was an objection that mighb ba fatal to the case. He must confess his sympathies were the other way, bub he could no 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 game of chess, wherj the most skilful player won, bu 1 ; as f«r as he possibly could he would ende»7or to make the Court one of equity rather than law. Judgment was reserved till next Court day.