
    ERASTUS A. CARROLL and another, Respondents, v. MARTIN WEILER, Appellant.
    
      Liability of owner of dog, for injuries to sheep—evidence.
    
    Action to recover for damages sustained by the killing and wounding of plaintiff ’s sheep by a dog of defendant. At the trial, it appeared that two dogs were engaged in killing and wounding the sheep, one of which was owned by a Mr* McCarthy, the other, as it was alleged, belonging to the defendant. Upon the defendant’s cross examination, he was asked whether he had killed the dog since the former trial of the cause; held, that the question was proper; that in the absence of evidence as to the cause of killing, it might be inferred that the dog was killed to destroy proof of his identity, or that defendant believed that he had killed the sheep, and killed him to prevent further loss.
    At the trial, McCarthy was allowed to testify that he, at one time, saw a dog resembling the defendant’s, in his (McCarthy’s) orchard, in company with his own dog. Held, that the evidence was properly admitted, as it tended to show that the dogs were known to each other, and, on one occasion, at least, were in company, thereby laying the basis for a presumption, that when a feast was to be had upon plaintiff’s sheep, they would enjoy it together.
    Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ontario county, affirming a judgment of a justice of the peace in favor of the plaintiff.
    
      J. Korr, for the appellant.
    
      JEdwm Kicks, for the respondent.
   Opinion hy Mttllin, P. J.

Judgment affirmed.  