Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Dogs and Sheep.

A case of Agnew Brown v. Henry Wil. lougbby, claim £2O damages, alleged to be incurred by defendant's dog killing cheep owned by plaintiff, was heard on Thursday, the case taking nearly the whole day. M r Finn for plaintiff, and Mr Jones for defendant.

For the plaintiff Mr David Reid, sheep farmer, deposed that between 8 and 9 on July 13 he had seen the dog (to whose identity he swore positively) on plaintiff s property near where some sheep had been freshly killed and badly worried. He set his dogs on to the animal—they tumbled it once, but the chase still continued, witness galloping up behind until he got to a fence, when he called his dogs off, and watched the other dog go into defendant's yard. Mr T. Curtis, who had known defendant’s dog for over two years, identified it as the one he had seen chased on the morning in question. Mr Brown said that the damage done through these dogs was so great that if it continued he could not long continue to graze sheep on the Wha'aupoko run. Evidence was also given as to the excellent quality of Mr Brown's flock, and the groat damage that would be done by dogs, at this time of the year especially, The defence was that a mistake had been made as to the identity of the dog, The animal was never let loose except about five In the morning and sometimes again in the evening, for not more than half an hour to get In the oows, and then he was always chained up. Mrs Willoughby said the dog could not possibly be loose without her knowing It, as the kennel was right opposite the deor, but when asked whether the dog had not some time previously been brought into town by her husband, as he bad testified, she said she did not know, as she had to attend to her other work and could not always be watching the kennels.

Mr Jones said they were aware that there was another dog running about which could hardly ba distinguished from defendant’s dog, but unfortunately they could not get hold of it when they wanted to do so. His Worship said that in face of the direct testimony given by Messrs Reid and Curtis, and the uncertainty there must be on the other side, judgment would be for plaintiff. The fact that defendant was so careful as ha said he was about tying up a dog that he said was perfectly quiet and used to sheep was in itself suspicious, On the question at <tam«Ssß. Mr Brown agreed to forego them on condition that the defendant gave up ths dog io ba shot and paid expanses, Messrs Brown, Reid, Preston, and Tucker did not claim witnesses’ expenses, and the costa came to £3 Sa,

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GSCCG18910801.2.8

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 641, 1 August 1891, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
479

Dogs and Sheep. Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 641, 1 August 1891, Page 2

Dogs and Sheep. Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 641, 1 August 1891, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert