DESTRUCTION OF FOUR DOGS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 3705, 14 December 1912, Page 8

DESTRUCTION OF FOUR DOGS.

SEQUEL TO A CRIMINAL

CHARGE

CAMPBELL VERSUS ECLINTON. • FULL AMOUNT OF CLAIM ALLOTTED. A civil case of considerable interest as a seqxiel to a recent criminal trial, was heard before Mr TV. A. Barton, S.M., yesterday, when'William Campbell (Mr Blair) claimed from Robert John Eglinton (Mr. Barnard) the sum of £2-5, the value of four sheepdogs alleged to have been destroyed by defendant on August 17 last. ' Mr Blair opened by remarking briefly on the legal position his point being that, legally, all previous events relating to the occurrence must not enter into the present claim. Counsel quoted “Taylor on Evidence,’’ volume 2, in support of his judgment. TV. Campbell, plaintiff, said that up to July 29 he and defendant were on friendly terms, defendant’s property adjoining “The Willows,” on which plaintiff was manager. On that day, as the result of defendant’s dog worrying sheep on plaintiff’s property, witness shot at defendant’s dog, intending to give it a fright, and he killed it. Eglington came over shortly afterwards and complained. After some words, defendant said “Well, Campbell, if I cannot fix you I will fix your dogs.” On July. 31, defendant had a notice on his gate, “poison laid for dogs,” and a similar notice in a newspaper. In consequence, plaintiff tied his four dogs up on August 2 and 3, and they remained chained until he found them dead on the 17th. He valued the dogs at £l7. A good sheepdog was now worth £l2. The dogs were never off the chain. The dogs were 100 yards from defendant’s fence and his house was a greater distance away from the same fence. When he found the dogs dead on the 17th, he found a piece of young beef near the dogs, the meat having been cut open and chrystals put in. He brought the meat to town and had it examined and Messrs Burton and Walker, veterinary surgeons, went to his place next day and held a post mortem examination of the dogs. Similar pieces of meat were in three of the dogs and the veterinary surgeons put it in a bottle. To Mr Burnurd: Witnes had previously warned defendant about his dog worrying witness’s sheep, but did not intend to destroy the dog when he shot at it. He paid £lO for two of the dogs at Williams and Kettle’s and the other two he reared, these being worth from £7 to £S each. Alfred Walker, veterinary surgeon, gave evidence as to examining the dogs and finding the meat insido them. Harold Armstrong deposed as to defendant purchasing one ounce of strychnine for the purpose of poisoning dogs. On August 17 Mr Walker brought him a piece of fresh meat in which there were 5 or G grains o-f chrystals of strychnine. In a bottle containing some partly digested pieces of meat, he also found some chrystals. In the first 7uece of meat the chrystals were similar to those lie cold, but the others were partly dissolved. William .Allan Stevens, stockman, said he was previously sales vardsman and had seen plaintiff at the sale with his dogs. He valued the team of four at £3O. Jamhs McKenzie McLean said that he saw the dog shot by plaintiff, and overheard the conversation between plaintiff and defendant, which he repeated. Defendant at the time looked very much annoyed. Constable Moore deposed as to seeing the four dead dogs at plaintiff’s place. He went to defendant’s place and asked him if he had been laying any poison. He said,- “Yes; I went the right way about it.” The poison had been laid in a paddock at the hack of his house, because dogs had been interfering with his milk. The poison defendant used was strychnine, some of which lie gave to witness. Defendant also told witness he had been using mutton for the poison. Witness saw the leg of a calf lying on the ground, which defendant stated had been used for dog’s meat. Defendant told him that he had laid the poison about a fortnight after procuring it from Armstrong’s. On being told about Campbell’s dogs being found dead on the chain, defendant said he knew nothing at all about the matter. , To Mr Burnardi: The leg of the calf looked as if the animal had not been killed more than a day or two. ■Mr Burnard opened his case in brief, contending in short that plaintiff had simply proved that defendant had made threats concerning the dogs and the death of the four dogs. Allan Toole, farm laborer, said he

1 met plaintiff the day after defendant’s | dog was shot. Plaintiff said he and McLean were near the stables, and saw- a dog in the paddock. He went for his gun, and when he got back the dog was running towards defendant. He fired at the dog, killing it. Plaintiff said he really did not intend to shoot the dog, but meant to give it a fright. Charles H. Jackson, farm laborer, said he was talking to defendant on the day the dog was shot. Defendant said the dog was running near ! the stable chasing some sheep. Plaintiff got his gun and shot the animal. Defendant stated that he did not kill four dogs belonging to the plain- . tiff. He did not place -poinsoned meat on or about Campbell’s station, but after the shooting of the dog placed poison on his own place. He used his dog for stock, and always tied it up near his milk cans to keep other dogs away. It was at night he tied his dog near the milk cans. Re-examined by Mr The leo- of meat w r as there because he had killed a calf about half-an-hour before the constable arrived. He usually put the poison down in the mornings and picked it up again in the evenings. He did this because be thought the- law was to lift poison at night. Mr Blair said he would like to reply to Mr Burnard, who had said that only two facts were proved, threats by defendant, and the death of the dogs, which his friend said was insufficient to enable His Worship to give judgment in favor of the plaintiff. There was, counsel, submitted,- a great deal more than those tw r o facts. In the first place there was the motive operating on the mind of defendant. Defendant’s dog was shot, and for that real or fancied injury, he felt) revengeful towards plaintiff. -?eeondlv, there were the threats against plaintiff and his property, threats to do acts corresponding to the facts which actually happened afterwards. The dogs were tied up a quarter of a mile away and there was thoie opportunity and facility to kill them. There was, too, the statement about the meat. Tlie statement was, “I used mutton. It was the only thing I could use.” This appeared to counsel’s mind to be a rather remarkable addition to tlie words, “I used mutton.” That was followed by the discovery on the part of the constable of a piece of beef a short distance away. Proceeding, counsel quoted from “Wills on Circumstantial Evidence.” He contended that he had proved a series of connected circumstances and facts, which, taken. -together, must prove to «i logical mind, that- tliG dcfend ant did intend to destroy these dogs by poisoning them. The evidence of defendant was entirely unsatisfactory. His Worship said that he was satisfied that the dogs were wilfully and deliberately poisoned by defendant. It was true that the evidence was circumstantial, but was so strong- as to leave no doubt whatever that the dogs were poisoned by the defendant. He had not the slightest doubt that the defendant bought poison for the special purpose of poisoning the plaintiff’s dogs. The evidence as to the value of the dogs was overwhelming. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £25. costs (£2 16s), witnesses expenses (£3 11s 6d), and solicitor’s fee (£2 2s).