French v Harris

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: Court of Appeal (Montserrat)
• Judge: Gordon, J.A.,Lewis, C.J.,Cecil Lewis, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 14 May 1969
• Neutral Citation: MS 1969 CA 2
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1969
• Date: 14 May 1969

French

and

Harris

Lewis, C.J. Gordon, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1969

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. Court of Appeal

Tort - Damages — Shooting animal on public highway.

Held: The Magistrate's findings and decision were supported by the evidence.

Facts: Consequent on the appellant in this case having shot the pet dog of the respondent, the respondent brought an action against the appellant claiming $75 by way of damages for shooting her pet dog on the public highway. The appellant counterclaimed against the respondent for damages for the loss of two goats which he alleged were eaten by the respondent's dog. The Magistrate entered judgment for the respondent in the sum of $150 and for the respondent on the counterclaim. The appellant appealed against the order on the ground that the decision could not be supported on the evidence.

Gordon, J.A.

1 Consequent on the applicant in this case having shot the pet dog of the respondent on the 9 ^th November, 1968 at Still Village, Montserrat, the respondent brought an action against the appellant claiming $75 by way of damages for shooting her pet dog on the public highway. The appellant counterclaimed against the respondent for damages for the loss of two goats, which he alleged, were eaten by the respondent's dog. On the matter coming on for hearing before her, the learned magistrate entered judgment for the respondent in the sum of $50 with costs $43.75 and for the respondent on the counterclaim. The appellant has appealed against this order on the ground

“that the decision is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence and that the decision is erroneous in point of law.”

2 By way of particulars of these grounds of appeal it was stated:

“the learned magistrate was wrong in law in holding that the defendant was wrong in shooting the plaintiff's dog which he found straying on his lands. Secondly, that there is an abundance of evidence that the plaintiff's dog was attacking or had attacked the defendant's goats or was about to renew an attack upon the plaintiff's goats”.

3 The brief facts, which have given rise to this action are that at about 7 a.m. an the 9 ^th November, 1968 the respondent accompanied by her pet dog went to attend to her cow and to milk it. On her way home in consequence of a report, which she heard, she discovered that the respondent had shot her dog and that it's body was on the road. The appellant...