SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 648, 18 August 1891, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL BUSINESS. The civil business of the Supreme Court was continued yesterday morning, the case of Steele v. Bamloee being taken. The special jury were: Messrs Parker (foreman), Humphreys, Reid, and Kirkpatrick, The claim was for £282 8s 6d, principally for damages by dogs. Mr Cooper appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Sainsbury for defendant. Mr Cooper said Mr Steele had a large ran at Wairoa and the defendant was an adjoining settler. They would briog evidence to show that on several occasions between January and the end of March defendant’s dogs had worried plaintiff's sheep. On mustering the sheep it was found 800 were missing, though they had shortly before been mustered. It might be a subject lor comment that 10 few were found, but the run being so large they could not discover all the sheep—they could only master the living sheep. When a dog of the kind—mainly of value because of its use for pig bunting—got hunting sheep the damage done by worrying them was nothing as compared with the loss caused by driving the sheep into the swamps, over declivities, and smothering them through their rushing through fern. It was no doubt unfortunate that this had happened, but the fault was with the defendant for keeping such a dog in sheep country. It was not necessary to prove that the defendant knew of the nature of the dog, but they could prove that the defendant knew the dog would worry sheep, and complaint bad been made to mim. As to the fence they could prove that defendant had had beneficial occupation. Pl jin'iff deposed that bis run comprised about 15,000 acres, divided into paddocks. Knew detanant’s dogs by sight, and one— Bob—by name. Had seen the dogs on the 17th March in a very large paddock opposite the defendant’s holding. Mr Sainsbury suggested that a plan he had brought should be used to indicate the properties.

His Honor said his experience of plans was they generally created confusion. Mr Cooper said there was no question of title-it was merely a matter of identity 0! the dogs. Plaintiff said 2 600 sheep were put into the paddock on March 2. Just before dusk on the 17 th March he was at an outlying yard of his, and observed the aheap rushing down over a steep spur. He left the rams he was driving, and galloping up ha aaw the dog Rob and a dog belonging to Mr Chrls'ensen rushing the sheep down the spur, tumbling them right and left and scattering them in all directions. Frightened off the dogs—afterwards they name up near him and lay down panting, but he could not get closer than eight yards. The muzzles of both dogs were covered with blood, and tho animals trotted off towards defendant’s. A few days afterv arils made a search, when he found a great number of _ sheep crippled, and otherwise badly worried, and a number dead—on the first day (April 3rd) he searched he found 22 freshly killed by doge, at different parts of the paddock, and about an equal number injured. He had before that found sheep worried along the river bank and car cases in the river—tho river was a rapid one and these were some that had stuck in the river. Had mustered the sheep on March 30, when they had only got 1,200 and they saw that a great deal of fern had been crushed down through the sheep having to force their way through, and also found some carcases. Had mustered all the living sheep. The oountry was very rough. In October the defendant had visited witness’ place, and tho dog Bob commenced to worry sheep in the yard, Had driven the dog out of the yard, and expostulated with defendant. The latter seemed to treat the matter as a joke and said, " AU the brute is fit for is making mutton." Witness told defendant he would keep an eye on .the dog thst it did not come there again, On Sunday, March 1, defendant, who had been drafting plaintiff's sheep, found a tew of his own that had got among the others. When some of defendant's sheep were being driven out, through the bad work of the dogs a few ran among a large mob plaintiff had some distance away. Told defendant tho sheep had to be fattened for freezing, and he oould not take all his mob back to the yard just to get out half a dozen. He said they could be got out at next drafting, with which arrangement defendant seemed satisfied, but ha afterwards sent in a bill for sheep illegally detained. ’Mr Sainsbury objected to these •' estions.l " The plaintiff’s sheep were fattening for freezing under a contract with Donnelly, of Napier, on behalf of Nelson Bros, but they had refused to take them for that purpose and be could not dispose of the sheep tor that purpose. Previously he bad had no difficulty in fattening sheep there. The loss on that account would be about £2OO.

Mr Sainsbury did not object to the evidence as to the contract, but objected to evidence as to the reason given, exbept Mr Donnelly was put in the box, or the correspondence was produced. Witness placed the value of the halfbreds at Ils, and the merinos at 5s or fis. Subsequently shot the dog Bob outride the defendant’s house—valued the dog at something lees than nothing. (Laughter; Mr Cooper: In eheep country). The dog was of sheep dog breed, but used for hunting pigs. The price of good sheep doge would run at about £4—he had bought one the other day for £l. There was about 13 miles of fencing along tho road line, defendant's frontage opposite big place being 4} miles. The fence was of steel wire (six) with Iron standards and battens, the top wire and other necessary places being barbed. The fence was erected tinder the Provincial Act of 1874. In reply to His Honor, Mr Cooper said he thought ha oould show that though the erection qf the fence was some years prior to the defendant's possession, apd the ’ repeal of the Act it, was still binding on the defendant. Witness continued that the fence was very superior to most of those mentioned in the Act. of 1831. It was of great use to the defendant, whose stock grazed on the road line, which had been grassed in the early days by plaintiff. The fenoe wag place 4 01 tho road lino as near as they could practG oally get it. and had cost over 466 a mile, Witness was cross-examined at great length by Mr Sainsbury, but was little shaken in his evidence. When asked whether the fence was cattle-proof he said he considered no fence proef against wild cattle—a six wire fence indeed was often better than a seven wire fenoe, because the cattle ryoutd jump the former white they would break through the latter. Barbed wire was no good to keep out wild cattle. A native witness deposed that hs h»4 sMfi defen lantte dog Bob and another one biting the plaintiff's eheep, on the 23rd of Marob, one ebeep being killed—recollected the date because he was washing wool at tho time. He fired a shot to frighten the dogs away. After that they went away and chased more sheep in the bush His wife was with him at the time, which was just alter breakfasti Had worked for Mr Ramlosa before this, when that gentleman owned the dog Bcb. Had seen over 20 dead eheep that had been worried by dogs, In cross-examination tho witness eaid ho did not remember admitting giving false evidence in a horse stealing case at Wairoa, bnt he wbuld not qweat the newspaper saying be had made such an admission wag net correct, He had also been charged with stealing Mr Steele's horse. [lt appeared that thia charge had subsequently been withdrawn ] A good deal of other svHenes 0! a more M less confirmatory nature was adduc’d, and the qase was adjourned until 10 this morning. ‘ ‘ '1