SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 649, 20 August 1891, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL BUSINESS. INTERESTING TO SHEEPFARMERS. The case of Steele v. Bamlose, for damage done to sheep by dogs, dragged on at the Court on Tuesday and Wednesday. The evidence was concluded at noon yesterday, when Mr Sainsbury addressed the jury for the defence. Mr Christensen, owner of one of the dogs, was joined as a defendant, and there were counter-claims for value of dog and trespass. The defence to the main action was that the dogs were at other places on the dates given. In regard to the trespass Mrs Ramlose gave evidence that Mr Steele had gone to their place, accompanied by eight natives and others, while only the women and children were at home. He shot one dog, and not killing it she told him he had better put it out of pain, which he did. Hethen demanded the ether dog, which was in the smithy. It was a great pet with the children, and she pleaded lor him to spare it, at any rate until the men oame home. He said he must have the dog—she protected it with her dress a couple of times, but then he got the dog and shot it before her,

Mr Sainsbury said the ease was one that should never have been brought to the Supreme Court, putting the parties to expenses, when the matter might have been decided in the B.M. Court. He did not put the case before them, asking their sympathy in favor of a small runholder as against a large one, but he submitted that the onus of proof was on the plaintiff. He nrged that the evidence of the natives could not be relied on except where it was substantuated by other evidence. Could they believe that natives in the pah together had not talked about the ease before they oame there as one wituess had said? Why were the other natives not called? Then they must not discredit the evidence 0! the witnesses for the defence, who deposed that these dogs were at home at the time. The only European evidence as to the dogs actually killing the sheep was that of plaintiff himself, and they had the evidence of an experienced station manager that dogs were not likely to come up to a man after they had been killing sheep. The evidence, he contended, was clear that the dogs were at a different place at the time, or if it were possible for the one dog to get away unobserved, was it likely it would go so far when it had to pass through Mr McKay’s paddock, where there were aheep? He suggested that Mr Steele must have been mistaken. How was Mr Steele's story reconcilable with his actions ? He said he saw these dogs on March 17th : he said he was fattening aheep in the paddock, but he never complained to Mr Ramlose in any way about the dogs, and it was only on his shooting the dog that Mr Ramlose knew anything about it, Waa it likely that Mr Steels would not oomplain, or ask that the dogs be shot, If he was certain whose they were ? If it were really so, the man deserved to bear the responsibility. The minuteness and yet contradictions of the native evidence proved that there was no reliance on them, while one wituess said the natives did not keep dogs, though they had dogs. As to the evidence of Mr Steele they could not discredit Mr Rimloae’s evidence. Was it likely that Mr Ramlose himself would keep dogs that would worry sheep when be had sheep of his own, and none of the near neighbors had any complaint or lost sheep by dogs ? while they were asked to believe that the dog went ten miles away to worry sheep, As to damages, assuming that the case waa decided against him on other points, nothing more, he submitted, could be claimed than tor 40 sheep—it was absurd to claim for 800, for even had they all been killed through dogs other dogs might have done it. As to the trespass, whatever grievance Mr S’oele had it was a very wanton and cruel thing for him to go to Ramlose’s house, and while only the two women and a child were at home shoot the dogs—no man had a right to go on a person's private property In this way. Mr Cooper began his address at 2, submitting that the main cause of action took place in regard to the worrying of sheep on March 17. If they could be satisfied

that the dogs had worried the sheep on the the 2nd January, they might rely that the dogs would, as dogs usually do, go back again. His friend's defence reminded one of the story of the man charged with murder : three witnesses deposed that they had seen him do it, but the defence brought 99 witnesses who swore they had not seen him do it. His friend, as against the positive evidence qn the plaintiff's side, brought witnesses to say they had not seen the dog kill the sheep. It would have been open to assertion if he had brought the other natives that these boys had made it up among themselves—the evidence of the one witness stood of itself, and the other evidence was that there was only one dog of the description in the district. When the Maori boy said he had not talked to anyone else about the case, he suggested that the witness meant that he had not been guilty of concoction. Having established by this evidence that the one dog had been among the aheep before March 17, they had Mr Steele’s positive evidence — Mr Steele could not possibly have been mistaken. He bad fl st seen them with a fieldglass and then they had afterwards cqme up about eight yards ftom him, their muzzles being smeared with blood. His friend had not asked them to reject any of thia evidence, only saying they were not the dogs of defendant’s. But Mr Steele knew the dogs well and was so near at to ba able to speak positively, and the only alternative they oouli have was not to say a m'atake had been made, but that Mr Steele was not telling the truth. Ingoingo and hia wife testified as to the worrying on the 23rd of March—his friend had tried to discredit the former's evidence, because he sail some charge bed been hanging over hia head tor two years, but if that were sq it waa a scandal to. justice. Though Ingoingoa and hia wife had not agreed as to the distance they could not apply a strict rule to distance or time—very few in that room could give a fair idea of its distance, and time and distance seemed vary different according to the oiroumstaneea of those judging. It would not be fair to be strict in regard to Sigthhee excepting a professional njan was giving evidence. The same with eo'or —it was a natural thing in natives not to give exaetly the same shades ot color. The natives were positive aboqt the dqga, which they knew by name, and that was sufficient. Hia friend did not attempt iq, deny that Ingoingoa had fired a gnn at dogs worryiny the sheep, and one of the witnesses for the defence gave evidence that he had heard a gun fired abput the time stated. There was no aspersion against ibe'*wife, exeept tgat she was a Maori and the wife of Jogoaiggoa, hut that was too trivia] altogether—she gave the positions of the dogs, but it would be absurd to reject the evidence because she had not been accurate as to distance. It was suggoctod that these witnesses were interested fiar ties. Beside ifie direct evidence they had the ndirect evidence thit ther dogs had been seen in the plaintiff’s paddocks. The attempt to prove an alibi in regard to the dogs was a most difficult thing. He asked them to apply common sense to it, and think if any qf them could state positively what had happened on a day bis months ago. On the two crucial dates defendant undertook to swear positively the dog was with him, but they could not take that statement against the positive evidence, and he said they would be justified in rejecting evidence because he was making it too good. tTo dcuht the flog was with him part of the day. It was impossible for them to eay that the other dog waa (it Futere'al!' the day qnfi the nature of the evidence made if suspicious. Gqq wjtne»s swore that the , dog had been fastened up every night from , the 18th January to 30th March, and he did ; not like to see the witness fall Into what , might seem a trap and be had referred his 1 attention to Christensen's evidence, when , the statement was qualified. Counsel went , on tc auajyqe the other evidence, urging | that even taking'the evidence of the defence , the dogs might possibly still have been 1 among the sheep. He did not ask them to 1 reject the evidence of the bulk of the wit- 1 nesses for the defence because they were 1 interested parties as his friend had said I Mr Steele was, but the latter's evidence I must have the Uanie weight in that respect 1 tt would rather bo for them to reconcile th<i I direct evidence of Mr Steele with that ot the ’

defence, and it was quite reconcilable with the general evidence of the defence. Taking another aspect of the case, even if an army of men were employed, many of the killed sheep in this rough country could not be found. Thirty or forty of the cheep bad been accounted for by them being in Mr Walker’s paddock across the creek, showing that something unusual had prompted them to go across the creek. Although 800 sheep were a large number, be thought, considering the nature of the country, there waa nothing incredible in such large damage being done. The small number of living aheep left showed how extensive had been the damage, and there was no evidence that other doge but the defendant’s had been there. He did not oak for vindictive damages—he only asked them to deal fairly. The defendants were poor men, and he left it to the jury to give what was fair compensation for the damages done. As to the counter-claims the pound paid for the dog was more than it was worth, and he thought that the £2 paid into Court sufficient for the technical trespass in going to defendant's sad killing the dogs—if the dogs killed the sheep, Mr Steele really did an act of kindness In destroying such dogs. In conclusion Mr Cooper said the case was one ot importance to runholders in the district, and he had no doubt justice would be done by the jury. His Honor, in his summing up, said there was no question of law arising out ot the ease, the question ot taw as to the fence having been abandoned—the ease was purely one ot facts. He was sorry to say that all the evidence could not be true—some ot the material evidence was not only untrue, but untrue to the knowledge of the persons. The dogs appeared to be well known in the neighbourhood

and It was not suggested there were dogs for which these might have been mistaken. If they believed the evidence of Mr Steele the verdict must be against defendants—his evidence vac so positive that they must either believe his evidence or decide that he waa guilty of wilful perjury, The positiyeness of Mr Ramrose'a evidence as to what took place on those particular occasions he believed was deliberately to mislead the jury, and if they took hia opinion they would not pay much weight to that evidence, which was the onty contradictory evidence to Mr Steele’s direct evidence. The fact that |the two dogs did not return heme together, supposing they went to hunt sheep, waa explained by the evidenoe that one had a litter ot pups at Putere. The evidenoe was confirmed that one dog had bitten a sheep at Mr Steele’s yard, and Mr Ramlose’s evidenoe on that point he considered satiafactory. They had the plaintiff’s evidenoe, but If they disbelieved him they could not trust the Other evidenoe on that side. As to the native who had said he had not previously spoken to any. one about the case, it was absurd to suppose that he would be brought 90 miles to give evidence without Mr Steele and perhaps counsel knowing what evidence he could give, They had positive evidenoe ot two or three oases ot the dogs having been killing sheep, while on the other side was the sort ot evidenoe that the doge were at different places. As to damages, 800 had been proved to bo missing about forty had been killed, and a like number found on the other runs, The rough nature ot the country would make it almost Impossible to find sheep smothered in the deep gullies, and there was the suggestion that many had been washed away. If they were satisfied that the sheep had disappeared in the way suggested, they would find accordingly 1 ff not they must judge by those found. Little had been said about value, but there was a point of law that where a wrong waa done it was for the defence to show they were ot less value than claimed. He left the jury to decide as to what depreciation would ba done by the dogs hunting the sheep. On the question of trespass, set up by the defence, Mr Steele himself admitted he had acted wrongly, but there appeared to be no violence in his conduct—only a technical trespass, on which the jury must decide. Aa to the dogs, if it was found they killed tho sheep they were no doubt worth ” less than nothing,” but if the dogs did not kill the sheep then a liberal view of their value should he taken. The jury retired at 7 minutes past 4, and at 5.15 brought in a verdict, in effect giving Mr Steele judgment for £63 Ba, being £lB 8s for 46 sheep killed and £45 tor damages to the remainder ot the flock; and judgment was for Mr Steele on the counter-claims.

Mr Cooper applied for costs of special jury, of trial of oountar-olalm, ot extra days, and for costs on the lowest scale. His Honor intimated that he did not think |t a case for a special jury. The defendant applied for coats of the abandoned issue, and argument on the questions was left over.