--from the Cartwright Council News in The North Ontario Observer, March 10, 1881:

A SHEEP CASE

Some time towards the close of the past year a party named Armstrong had six valuable sheep killed by dogs.  Application was made to the council for damages at the following session and the matter investigated so far but owing to the absence from home of the owner of the sheep the matter was laid over awaiting the return of the owner.  On Monday the owner appeared before the council and the investigation was renewed.
Mr. Armstrong sworn--Had 6 sheep killed by dogs.  Did not make much enquiry as to the dogs, don't know where the sheep were when killed, the sheep could not get out on the road if the bars were up, was away don't know much about it, know Mr. Williams had sheep killed, can't say whether mine or Williams' were first killed, Williams said that my dog and Joe Armstrong's were the two that killed his sheep, my dog and my brother Joe's are both dead, they were shot.  Valued three of the sheep at $12 each, the 6 would be worth $8 each on an average.
Don't believe my dog injured my sheep, he would rather protect them, at one time when dogs attacked them my dog defended them and fought the dogs that attacked them and saved the sheep, never heard of a dog killing his own sheep.
Mr. Goggin said that he knew dogs which attacked their own sheep for his own had done it.
The Reeve remarked that Mr. Armstrong must not suppose that the Council is treating his case with any wish to do him an injustice, the law points out the course to be pursued by the Council and they have no choice in the matter and only wish to do justice between Mr. Armstrong and the municipality as it is only on certain conditions that the council is allowed to pay for sheep killed.
Mrs. Armstrong sworn.
Had six sheep killed by dogs, came to the Council shortly after they were killed, in December last, have seen many dogs about there, saw as many as eleven at one time, saw the tracks of the dogs that killed the sheep, there were three tracks or tracks of three dogs, never knew our sheep to go to Martin's place before the time that they were killed, they could get to the road but never knew them to go, found four of the killed sheep in the cellar of an old house about two fields from our place, found the other two outside, they could get out to the quarterline, heard that Mr. Williams had sheep killed, it was after ours were killed before I heard of his, Mr. Williams followed our dog home, this was before our sheep were killed, would not swear whose dog killed them.
Thos. Williams sworn.  Heard that E[dward]. Armstrong had sheep killed by dogs, I have had sheep killed on more than one occasion, had several bitten and one killed last fall, my brother's sheep and mine were together, my brother had one killed at that time two weeks after I heard dogs at the sheep again, got my gun and went after the dogs, as they went through Armstrong's sheep, the two dogs attacked a sheep each and threw them down, drove the dogs and they dodged and attacked the sheep again chased the two dogs, shot at and wounded one of them, followed them home, the wounded dog belonged to Joe Armstrong and the other belonged to E. Armstrong, don't know whether Armstrong's sheep were killed before or after mine.
Mr. Williams, a brother of the previous witness was called but added nothing to the information already received.
A. Thompson sworn--Know that Armstrong had sheep said to be killed by dogs, don't remember the time I first heard it, don't remember whether Armstrong's or Williams' sheep were first killed, saw Armstrong's sheep, never saw as many dog tracks around killed sheep, tracks of so many dogs, knew Armstrong's dog, can't swear to his tracks.
To Mr. Goggin--Armstrong's dog was alive when I saw his sheep that were killed.
The Reeve now read the clauses of the Act directing the action of councils in such cases and dwelt on the peculiar points in said clauses.
After a short deliberation Mr. Lattimor, seconded by Mr. Goggin, moved that Mr. Armstrong's claim be disallowed as it appears from the evidence that the applicant had not complied with the requirements of the law in failing to make dilligent search to find out the owner of the dog or dogs that did the damage.  Also that the sheep had not been properly enclosed on the premises and also that the council have reason to believe that Mr. Armstrong's own dog had something to do with killing the sheep.
Mr. Cowan would prefer that the matter stand over if perhaps more evidence may be secured.
The Reeve said the council would have no objection to lay the matter over for another month if Mr. Armstrong so desired it with the expectation of bringing forward further evidence.  As Mr. Armstrong did not request postponement the motion was put and declared carried.