Norwich bulletin., 1911-07-27

the sheep, but Judge Gardiner Greene,
 who was the presiding judge on the
 trial, finds that the dogs ran in the
 same direction as the sheep, but did
 not pursue them, and, before the dogs
 had reached the corner of the tobacco
 shed, they turned suddenly in a south
 westerly direction towards brook in
 the lower part of the same lot, thus
 crossing the trail of the sheep leading
 from the grazing ground to the shed
 and heading away from the sheep.
 At tha brook the judge finds, the
 dogs turned again, circling about. as
 if endeavoring to pick up lost trail.
 and thus circling, approached the to-
 bacco shed and within short dis
 tance of the sheep, which were still
 standing by the. shed but the dogs
 did not alter their acting in the pres
 ance of the sheep, and continued their
 paying and kept their noses to the
 ground. At this time and while the
 dogs and sheep were thus placed, MT
 Tripp the judge finds, without at
 tempting to ascertain the purpose of
 the dogs, and standing near by in the
 highway, shot at and wounded one of
 the dogs, and immediately thereafter
 shot at but missed the second one.
 With third shot he despatched the
 wounded dog, which had attempted TO
 run. The remaining three dogs were
 running in the directionf of their home
 in Somers. MT. Tripp followed the
 dogs about half mile across the field
 and. overriding one of them he shot
 and killed it. At the time of the shoot
 ing of the second dog, the sheep were
 still standing near the tobacco shed and nearly half a mile from where
 the second dog was shot. and no sheep were present where the second dog was killed. This is the material testi- mony on which the jury reported a verdict of guilty against Tripp.
 Tripp's Contention.
 Tripp's contention at the trial was that ha saw the dogs not in the con- trol of anyone, pursuing and worry ing his sheep on MT. Pinney's land and he admitted the shooting, but said the killing of the dogs was not done in a reckless or wanton gnanner, that the conduct of the dogs near the tobacco shed was such as to excite g reasonable apprehension in his mind that the dogs were pursuing. worrying and wounding the sheep and other wise doing them serious injury and damage, and that the killing of the dogs was to protect the sheep. MT | Tripp said that he had reasonable ground to believe and that he did be- l Iieve that the killing of the dog near 1 the shed was necessary to protect the sheep.
 1 Some of the questions of law raised 1 in behalf of Tripp on the trial before Judge Greene and which will come be- l fore the supreme court were that il was not necessary for Tripp to snow l that any of the sheep or lambs had been bitten or Wounded. or were being worried by the dogs but, if the dogs were pursuing the sheep or lambs, il was lawful for Tripp to kill the dogs l It was also contended in behalf oi | Tripp that he was under no obligation 1 to endeavor to drive the dogs off, il they were pursuing. worrying o1 woundng the sheep. but that he had a legal right to kill the dogs, without making any attempt to drive then away from the sheep. Tripp did not l alIege that the dogs were doing any harm when he killed them, but the main question before the supreme court will be whether the dogs. wher l killed. were pursuing, worrying ol | wounding the sheep. Tripp charged 1 that they were.