Bridget ArmstrongAge: 81 years1856–1937
- Bridget Armstrong
- Given names
- Married name
- Bridget Dath
|Birth|| 1856 21 27|
|Birth of a sister||Catherine Mary Armstrong|
1858 (Age 2 years)
|Immigration|| 1872 (Age 16 years)|
|Marriage||John Dath — View this family|
15 June 1881 (Age 25 years)
Shared note: Married in the house of The Reverend Thomas Leuchan
| Birth of a son|
10 March 1882 (Age 26 years)
|Baptism of a son||Thomas Dath|
19 March 1882 (Age 26 years)
Note: Godparent: Catherine Finch
| Birth of a son|
|William Joseph Dath|
18 May 1883 (Age 27 years)
|Baptism of a son||William Joseph Dath|
19 June 1883 (Age 27 years)
Address: Godparents: Lawrence and Margaret Horan
| Birth of a son|
7 October 1884 (Age 28 years)
|Baptism of a son||John Dath|
29 October 1884 (Age 28 years)
Note: Godparent: M Armstrong
| Birth of a daughter|
|Elizabeth Norah Dath|
5 January 1886 (Age 30 years)
|Baptism of a daughter||Elizabeth Norah Dath|
9 February 1886 (Age 30 years)
Note: Godparents: John and Maggie Ryan
| Birth of a daughter|
|Helen Theresa Dath|
31 March 1887 (Age 31 years)
|Baptism of a daughter||Helen Theresa Dath|
15 September 1887 (Age 31 years)
Note: Godparents: James Kirby and Elizabeth Cutler
|Death of a son||Thomas Dath|
18 June 1888 (Age 32 years)
|Burial of a son||Thomas Dath|
June 1888 (Age 32 years)
| Birth of a daughter|
|Catherine Mary Dath|
20 March 1889 (Age 33 years)
|Baptism of a daughter||Catherine Mary Dath|
30 May 1889 (Age 33 years)
Note: Godparents: Edward Carr and Ellen Cutler
|Death of a son||William Joseph Dath|
19 March 1891 (Age 35 years)
|Burial of a son||William Joseph Dath|
20 March 1891 (Age 35 years)
Note: Block 10 Plot 3
|Death of a daughter||Elizabeth Norah Dath|
1 April 1891 (Age 35 years)
Shared note: There was an influenza epidemic in New Zealand in the early months of 1891
|Burial of a daughter||Elizabeth Norah Dath|
1 April 1891 (Age 35 years)
Note: Block 10 Plot 42
| Birth of a daughter|
|Elizabeth Norah Dath|
4 April 1891 (Age 35 years)
|Baptism of a daughter||Elizabeth Norah Dath|
14 May 1891 (Age 35 years)
Note: Godparents: Edward and Hannah Carr
|Marriage of a child||Richard Alexander Donaldson — Helen Theresa Dath — View this family|
Type: Living Togetherabout 1909 (Age 53 years)
|Marriage of a child||Albert Arnold Fisher — Elizabeth Norah Dath — View this family|
5 September 1914 (Age 58 years)
|Death of a son||John Dath|
15 September 1916 (Age 60 years)
Cause: Killed in Action
Note: Battle of the Somme
British War Medal and the Victory Medal
Note: The British War Medal and the Victory Medal were presented to his mother Bridget Dath 28 September 1923
|Burial of a son||John Dath|
September 1916 (Age 60 years)
Cemetery: Caterpillar Valley Cemetery
Note: Historical Information: Caterpillar Valley was the name given by the army to the long valley which rises eastwards, past "Caterpillar Wood", to the high ground at Guillemont. The ground was captured, after very fierce fighting, in the latter part of July 1916. It was lost in the German advance of March 1918 and recovered by the 38th (Welsh) Division on 28 August 1918, when a little cemetery was made (now Plot 1 of this cemetery) containing 25 graves of the 38th Division and the 6th Dragoon Guards. After the Armistice, this cemetery was hugely increased when the graves of more than 5,500 officers and men were brought in from other small cemeteries, and the battlefields of the Somme. The great majority of these soldiers died in the autumn of 1916 and almost all the rest in August or September 1918. CATERPILLAR VALLEY CEMETERY now contains 5,569 Commonwealth burials and commemorations of the First World War. 3,796 of the burials are unidentified but there are special memorials to 32 casualties known or believed to be buried among them, and to three buried in McCormick's Post Cemetery whose graves were destroyed by shell fire. On 6 November 2004, the remains of an unidentified New Zealand soldier were entrusted to New Zealand at a ceremony held at the Longueval Memorial, France. The remains had been exhumed by staff of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission from Caterpillar Valley Cemetery, Longueval, France, Plot 14, Row A, Grave 27 and were later laid to rest within the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior, at the National War Memorial, Wellington, New Zealand. On the east side of the cemetery is the CATERPILLAR VALLEY (NEW ZEALAND) MEMORIAL, commemorating more than 1,200 officers and men of the New Zealand Division who died in the Battles of the Somme in 1916, and whose graves are not known. This is one of seven memorials in France and Belgium to those New Zealand soldiers who died on the Western Front and whose graves are not known. The memorials are all in cemeteries chosen as appropriate to the fighting in which the men died.
|Death of a daughter||Helen Theresa Dath|
30 November 1917 (Age 61 years)
|Residence|| between 1896 and 1928 (Age 40 years)|
Deafnessbefore December 1917 (Age 61 years)
Note: Bridgets deafness is mentioned during a sheep worrying court case in December 1917
|Burial of a daughter||Helen Theresa Dath|
3 December 1917 (Age 61 years)
Address: Eastern Cemetery Block/Plot: Free Ground - 1 / 1X
Sheep Worrying18 December 1917 (Age 61 years)
Shared note: SHEEP WORRYING CASE.
|Death of a husband||John Dath|
1 January 1925 (Age 69 years)
Cause: Arterial cleroses & Gangrine of foot
|Burial of a husband||John Dath|
3 January 1925 (Age 69 years)
Address: Block 10 Plot 42 Waitahuna Cemetery
|Death of a sister||Catherine Mary Armstrong|
17 June 1928 (Age 72 years)
|Burial of a sister||Catherine Mary Armstrong|
19 June 1928 (Age 72 years)
Address: Andersons Bay Cemetery Block 22, Plot 2
|Residence|| 1937 (Age 81 years)|
Address: 71 Salisbury Street
|Death|| 24 September 1937 (Age 81 years)|
Cause of death: Myocardial degeneration
|Burial|| 27 September 1937 (3 days after death)|
Cemetery: Block #18 Plot #173, Bromley Cemetery
Note: 10 rows in from main driveway 10th plot on left-hand side
|Will|| 26 August 1938 (11 months after death)|
|Probate|| 29 August 1938 (11 months after death)|
|Family with parents|
Birth: 1835 — Omagh, County Tyrone, Ireland
Christening: 18 June 1828 — Dromara, County Down, Ireland
3 yearsyounger sister
Catherine Mary Armstrong
Birth: 1858 23 29 — Thurles, County Tipperary, Ireland
Death: 17 June 1928 — Dunedin, New Zealand
|Family with John Dath|
Birth: 1847 — Carlow, Leinster, Ireland
Death: 1 January 1925 — Waitahuna Gully, Otago, New Zealand
Marriage: 15 June 1881 — Milton, Otago, New Zealand
Birth: 10 March 1882 35 26
Death: 18 June 1888 — Waitahuna Gully, Otago, New Zealand
William Joseph Dath
Birth: 18 May 1883 36 27 — New Zealand
Death: 19 March 1891 — Waitahuna Gully, Otago, New Zealand
Birth: 7 October 1884 37 28 — Milton, Otago, New Zealand
Death: 15 September 1916 — France
Elizabeth Norah Dath
Birth: 5 January 1886 39 30 — Waitahuna Gully, Otago, New Zealand
Death: 1 April 1891
Helen Theresa Dath
Birth: 31 March 1887 40 31 — Waitahuna Gully, Otago, New Zealand
Death: 30 November 1917 — Bluff, New Zealand
Catherine Mary Dath
Birth: 20 March 1889 42 33 — Waitahuna Gully, Otago, New Zealand
Death: 9 September 1950 — Christchurch, New Zealand
Elizabeth Norah Dath
Birth: 4 April 1891 44 35 — Waitahuna Gully, Otago, New Zealand
Death: 15 July 1968 — Napier, New Zealand
Married in the house of The Reverend Thomas Leuchan
Witnesses: James Murphy, Teacher, Milton Catherine Finch, Tokomairiro
Place of Registration: Tokomairiro
Occupations: John Dath - Storekeeper Bridget Armstrong - Servant
Conjugal Status: John Dath - Bachelor Bridget Armstrong - Spinster
Bridgets deafness is mentioned during a sheep worrying court case in December 1917
SHEEP WORRYING CASE.
AT WAITAHUNA. At the Magistrate's Court Lawrence, on Tuesday, before B. J. Achcson, Esq., the sheep worrying case John Kirby v. John Dath was heard. The statement of claim was as follows: "The plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant, the sum of £l0, being loss and damage sustained by the plaintiff through the defendant so negligently keeping his dog that on the 9th of July, 1917, it worried a flock of sheep, the property of the plaintiff, then depasturing on land in occupation of the plaintiff at Waitahuna whereby eight sheep were killed and the flock otherwise injured. Mr Finlayson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Moore for defendant. All witnesses were ordered out of court.
Mr Finlayson, in opening his case, said the action was to recover £l0 damages caused to plaintiff's flock of sheep through being worried by defendant's dog on the 9th July. The plaintiff is a farmer at Waitahuna and had a flock of 40 ewes and wethers depasturing on a section of 30 acres situated on the Havelock Commonage, which he occupied under a yearly tenancy. This section was enclosed with a sheep-proof fence. Evidence, he said, would be led to prove than on the morning of the 9th July a neighbouring farmer when going out to plough on an adjoining section, noticed a dog chasing plaintiff's sheep, that he saw the dog cut one of the flock and chase it into the gully; that this man on going into plaintiff's section came upon the dog, which he recognised as defendant's, in the act of worrying a sheep; that in following the dog, which made off on his appearance, he came upon another sheep which was freshly worried, and that he followed the dog down towards the defendant's house where he saw two people whom he took to be defendant and his wife, and called out to them to tie the dog up as he had been caught worrying sheep. On the following day, said counsel, the plaintiff, on going to work on his section, found eight of his sheep worried — seven dead and one almost dead — and the remainder of the flock considerably knocked about. After the steps taken by plaintiff to obtain payment for the damage done from defendant counsel quoted a number of authorities in regard to the liability of owners for damage done by their dogs, etc., he then called evidence in support of the claim.
John Kirby, farmer and mail contractor (plaintiff), deposed that he occupied a section of about 30 acres on the Havelock Commonage. He had held it for four years under a yearly tenancy from the Havelock Commonage Trustees. The area was fenced and wirenetted. He was bringing the action for the loss of eight sheep. At the beginning of July he had a flock of 40 sheep (mixed sexes) on the section. On Tuesday, 10th July, he went up to the section to dig potatoes. On getting on to the ground his attention was called by a little girl that accompanied him to a sheep that was lying down. On going over to it he found that it had been worried, being badly bitten about the breast and fore-leg and was in a dying condition. There was wool lying about and there was every indication that it had been worried by a dog. He then mustered the sheep and on counting them found ten short. He then looked around and found seven other sheep lying in the gully, all of which had the appearance of being freshly worried, and were all marked in the same position as the first sheep. That made a total of eight and he was still two short. He had found one since lying under some scrub, The remainder of the flock appeared very frightened. He went on digging potatoes and during the day his nephew came over and from what he learned from him he called at Dath's house about half a mile away from his section. He saw both Mr and Mrs Dath and told them he had had some sheep worried and that he suspected their dog as being responsible. Mrs Dath said "are you sure it was our dog," and he replied that he would make inquiries and that they would have to pay for them if he found it was their dog that had worried them. Mr Dath said he could not pay for them. On the Thursday following this he met Mr Flett and arranged with him to value the sheep, which he did on the Sunday following. After this he went to see Mr Wallace who told him what he had seen on the Monday morning, 9th July. He sent defendant a written notice giving particulars of the sheep worried aud claiming their value. Some time before he had seen defendant's dog chasing Mr Hall's sheep in a paddock next to his. It cut one out and had it down under a rock face. He threw a clod at the dog and it ran away. He told Mr Hall what he had seen and he said he would go and see the Daths about it. The dog, a big lanky brute, was often off the chain and used to run out and bite his (witness's) horse as he passed, carrying the mail, and on one occasion attacked and lamed his dog. He complained, when Mrs Dath told him to look after his own dog. On the 10th July when he called at Dath's he was chained up. Had not seen the dog since and believed it had been destroyed. He considered £l0 a low valuation for the sheep; they could not be replaced under £l5. Most of the ewes were in lamb.
To Mr Moore: Had a yearly lease, and the Trustees said he could put whatever stock he chose on the land. He had the sheep a couple of months before they were worried. They were bought from different people and were mostly young sheep. He thought he inspected them on Saturday, 7th July, but would not swear to this date, but would to having counted them on the 5th July when he found there were forty. He usually worked on the section on the days he was not engaged in carrying the mails, The flock was a healthy one. He got 50 per cent of lambs — a small average. A short time before this two sheep had died and as they had wounds about the legs he suspected they had been worried and he left them for a good time to see if the dog that worried them would come back. He had never heard that there were a couple of wild dogs on Ronnie Sutherland's run. All the dead sheep were marked on the breast and under the fore-leg. He was quite certain the injuries could not have been inflicted by hawks or seagulls. It would not tako a dog like Dath's very long to worry eight sheep.
At this stage Mr Finlayson put in a letter from the secretary of the Havelock Commonage confirming plaintiff's statement that any class of stock might be grazed on the section leased from the trustees.
John Wallace, farmer, Waitahuna, deposed that on the morning of 9th July last he was yoking up to plough on his farm near Kirby's when he heard a dog barking among plaintiff's sheep. Saw the dog single out one and chase it into the gully. He ran over to plaintiff's section and caught the dog in the act of worrying the sheep. The sheep was lying down but not dead. It was bleeding about the body and was apparently badly torn. He got to within ten yards of the dog before he ran away. Knew the dog was Mr Dath's. It was a big lanky slaty coloured dog and looked like a cross between a collie and a greyhound. He found another sheep worried; it was warm and was about 100 yards from the first. Did not look for others but followed the dog down to Mr Dath's. Went, to within about 200 yds of Dath's. Saw two persons standing outside the house and took them to be Mr and Mrs Dath. He called out to them "Tie up your dog; it has been worrying sheep at Kirby's." The reason he did not go right down to the house was because he did not want lo leave his team too long. Had seen llio dog at Dath's and also with .Mrs Math, and with her son. Immediately after he got back to his team Thomas Kirby came up to him. Saw Mrs Dath a few days after the worrying. She came to his house to talk over the worrying. He told her he had seen her dog worrying Kirby's sheep. She said she was able to pay for two or three but not for the lot. She also said she was trying to get someone to destroy the dog. She said she had a few pounds in the house.
To Mr Moore ; Was just yoking up when he heard the barking and noticed the dog about 100 yards away. It was amongst the mob where he first saw it. It singled out one chased it away from the rest of the flock. As soon as the dog saw him (witness) it bolted, and after examining the sheep he followed the dog. He knew the dog well. There is a dog at Waitahuna something like him as to colour. He knew this other dog well. Was positive the dog that worried the sheep was not this dog. He simply followed it to tell Mrs Dath lo tie the dog up. He did not see the dog arrive at Dath's. The second sheep, he saw was about 100 yards away on the track. It was torn open and warm. Took the two people he saw at Dath's as defendant and his wife. Had a clear view. Was not sure whether the dog was running about. Was not sure whether he got an answer when he called out to Daths to tie their dog up. Not more than ten minutes elapsed between the time he first saw the dog and his calling out to the persons in front of Dath's. A professional dog worrier would easily worry eight sheep in half an hour. Had lost a few sheep himself through worrying; and had been warned about this particular dog as he had been previously caught among sheep. Had not seen any stray or wild dogs about the property, nor had he heard of two wild dogs roaming about Sutherland's run. Would describe Dath's dog as a middle-aged dog and its teeth would be in good condition. Young dogs were more apt to hunt in couples. Had seen seagulls going for dead sheep. A seagull might go for a sheep just dead and wounds caused by it might present a fresh appearance. Some dogs worry by the throat but did not think a dog was particular where it caught a sheep. Could not say how long after it was that Mrs Dath came to him three or four days, perhaps. Thought he told her he only saw two worried sheep. She mentioned that Kirby had been to her.
To Mr Finlayson: There was no doubt whatever about the two sheep he saw having been worried by a dog.
Thomas Kirby, miner, Waitahuna (a nephew of plaintiff) deposed that he was talking to Mrs Dath at her gate on the morning of the 9th when the previous witness called out from the hillside some distance away telling her to tie up her dog as it had been worrying sheep. Mrs Dath, owing to deafness, could not make out the message and he had to tell her what Wallace was saying. Mrs Dath asked him if he would shoot the dog for her and he said he would. He noticed the dog standing near Mrs Dath but could not say how long it had been there, and he did not notice whether it had any evidence such as blood about its mouth, of having been among sheep. He then proceeded on his way and met and talked to Mr Wallace who told him what he had seen. Later in the day he went over to plaintiff's section. He say a dead sheep on the sidling and another one down with a big hole in its side, but it was not then dead. In reply to Mr Moore witness said he had not heard of any stray dogs roaming about the neighbourhood.
Henry Plett, sheep-farmer, Waitahuna, deposed to examining the dead sheep on the Sunday following the worrying and to supplying a valuation of each of the eight sheep. He had made a careful examination and was positive their death was due to worrying by dogs. They were all badly mangled under the fore-leg and on the brisket. He could not say definitely how long previously they had been worried. They were very fresh and he would say not more than six or seven days. The sheep were crossbreds of mixed sexes.
To Mr Moore: Had had personal experience of sheep worrying and also of sickness among sheep. When sheep die of disease hawks and seagulls often attack the dead carcase.
Mr Moore, before commenting on the evidence tendered for the plaintiff, raised a couple of legal points. The first was as to the form of statement of claim. The claim as drawn up was for the recovery of £l0 for negligently keeping a dog and he submitted the plaintiff's side had not proved negligence aud that the subject of the claim could not now be altered. The second point was that the Havelock Commonage trustees had no power under the Act constituting the Commonage to lease any portion of the land for enclosure or the grazing of sheep. The Commonage, he pointed out, was set aside for the use of the miners for the grazing of cattle and he contended that the word "cattle" as used in the Act did not include sheep but merely cattle of the bovine species. The sheep were therefore trespassers and the plaintiff in placing them on this land did so at his own risk. The fencing provided for in the Act was for a specific purpose, viz., to enclose portions that had been planted for beautifying purposes and not for the enclosure of sheep. In regard to the evidence submitted by plaintiff he contended that while defendant's dog might be fairly held responsible for the worrying of two of the sheep there was I nothing to connect it with the loss of the other six sheep found dead, and he submitted that it was quite possible that they had either died from disease and been afterwards attacked by hawks or gulls or that other stray dags were responsible or their death.
He called deposed that her husband was a miner. Bridget Dath, wife of defendant, who but, owing to old age and illness, had not done any work for four years. He was too ill to come to court. The dog, which belonged to her son, was used for bringing in the cows. He was generally tied up, but occasionally broke away. On the morning of the 9th July she had let him loose and sent him to bring in the cows, but owing to their having got into a neighbour's turnips he did not do so and was away for about 20 minutes or half an hour. She did not notice anything special about him when he came back. He was with her when she went to gather some firewood and when she came back she met Tom Kirby and had a talk with him. She heard a shout from a man on the hill but could not tell what he was saying. Kirby explained that it was Mr Wallace and he was asking if it was her dog that had been worrying sheep. Young Kirby then went away and she chained up the dog. On the following day plaintiff called and complained that their dog had been worrying his sheep and she replied that she did not think it was their dog. Mr Kirby called again and her husband spoke to him at the gate, she also being present. He said "Your dog worried 10 of my sheep and lambs and you will have to pay for them." My husband told Kirbs to do his best and also asked him if anyone bad seenu their dog worrying his sheep, and he replied "You may be sure they did." She thought it was after plaintiff's second visit that she went up to see Mr Wallace. Mr Wallace told her he saw their dog worrying one of Mr Kirby's sheep and there was one half worried, but he had not gone over the ground. Her husband received an account for £9 18s which she returned with the endorsement "Very sorry; can't meet the account." They subsequently had the dog destroyed, partly because he was not registered for that year and also because they thought he might get into trouble with sheep which were about the gate. She had seen other dogs like theirs about the neighbourhood.
To Mr Finlayson : She told Mr Wallace that if there was only one or two sheep they would try to pay something, but could not pay for ten. Nobody had previously complained about her dog.
Mr Finlayson having replied to the legal points raised by Mr Moore his Worship said he would reserve judgment till the following morning at 11 o'clock.
His Worship on Wednesday morning read his judgment as follows: First, as to legal points. As to the objection to the statement of claim by defendant's solicitor that it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the dog was negligently kept, i.e., that the defendant knew the dog was given to destroying sheep and should not have been allowed at liberty. I am of opinion that this contention is sound as the statement of claim is drawn, but in reply to this the plaintiff's solicitor cites sub-section 2 of section 93 of "The Magistrate's Court-Act, 1908," which directs the court to make all amendments that may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties in the action. By altering the statement of claim so as to make it read "The plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant the sum of £l0, being loss and damage sustained by him through the defendant's dog on the 9th of July, 1917, worrying plaintiff's sheep whereby eight of them were killed and the others injured the defendant will not be prejudiced, and the real question at issue between the parties will be determined. I, therefore, make the necessary alterations to make it so read.
The solicitor for the defendant contends that since the sheep at the time of the worrying are depasturing upon a commonage, as is not disputed by the plaintiff, the provisions of "The Dog Tax Registration Act, 1908" which makes an owner liable for all injury done by his dog does not apply. The section of "The Havelock Commonage Act, 1903" which he relies upon (the sheep having been worried upon the commonage created by "The Havelock Commonage Act, 1905") gives the trustees under the said Act power to manage the land described therein as a commonage for the town of Havelock in such manner as they think most expedient and to issue licenses authorising any of the inhabitants of the said town to depasture cattle thereon upon payment of a fee. He contends that the trustees can only issue licenses for theo grazing of cattle and that although the plaintiff had a lease of a part of the commonage as was proved during the hearing, that the same was ultra vires, and the sheep that were worried being only trespassers no action could be maintained for their destruction. In my opinion this contention is unsound. The power to issue licenses is only portion of the powers conferred on the trustees by the said Act. In addition thereto they may manage the lands in such manner as they think most expedient, and I think they were quite justified in leasing any part thereof. The sheep were then not trespassers, assuming that trespassing sheep could be dealt with as he contends — which is not at all certain — and the owner of any dog worrying them would be liable in damages by virtue of section 27 of the "Dog Registration Act 1905."
Having thus disposed of legal questions raised by the solicitor for the defendant I next have to determine whether any of the plaintiff's sheep were worried and who was the owner of the dog that worried them.
As to the first point the plaintiff deposes that going to his section on the 10th of July last he found a sheep in a dying condition, it having been bitten about the breast and the right foreleg and on looking round found nine others in more or less worried condition. I am of opinion that these sheep were worried by a dog or dogs. As in addition Mr Wallace deposed that he caught a dog worrying the plaintiff's sheep on the 9th of July, the day previous.
As to the next question, viz., the ownership of the dog, I think that the dog which did the damage belongs to the defendant. It was of a peculiar colour viz., black and gray or slate and of unusual breed, being a halfbreed commonly denoted a lurcher, that is a cross between a greyhound and another dog and when chased by Mr Wallace ran in the direction of the defendant's, and the defendant's wife admitted the ownership of a similar animal, and also deposed that the dog was at liberty that morning for about half-an-hour, having been sent by her for the cattle. Also Mr Thomas Kirby stated that he was talking to Mrs Dath on the same morning — which she also stated was true — and that he saw Mr Wallace who called out from the hillside about a dog having worried some sheep. It is true Mrs Dath said the dog was with her while she was gathering firewood, but it seems to me that the damage to the sheep could easily have been done prior to that as Mr Wallace followed the dog for some considerable distance before he lost sight of it when it was going in the direction of the defendant's house, and it was a considerable distance from that house when he abandoned following it. As to the contention by Mr Moore that the injuries to the sheep could have been caused by seagulls or hawks I think that since they were all made in the same place, viz., the brisket and foreleg, they were made by a dog for no hawk or seagull could inflict injuries such as they upon a standing sheep, and it is not at all likely that nine sheep out of a total of 40, which was the number the plaintiff owned, would be on their backs at the same time or be all bitten in the same spot. No, I believe the injuries were all caused by the same animal and that the defendant's dog, and must therefore give judgment for the amount claimed by the plaintiff with costs. It is true a sum of 2s in addition to the value of he sheep is claimed for general damages to the rest of the flock. This I take to be a very reasonable sum since no flock of even thirty sheep could be chased about without inflicting damage to the survivors. In fact the defendant's solicitor did not seriously challenge the amount of the claim and I think very properly, too.
The following costs were allowed the plaintiff: — Solicitor's fee £1 6s; costs of court 16s, and witnesses expenses £2 18s.
10 rows in from main driveway 10th plot on left-hand side