Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 1 · column 1 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
THE SUPERVISORS put a slightly different twist last Thursday to their handling of the almostmonthly problem of paying for livestock killed by dogs. At Supervisor Herbert Foster’s urging, it was decided to study the possibility of paying for all claims on the basis of the going market rate, rather than for the assessed value of the animal killed.
The question came up when deciding how to compensate Tom Lee for one sheep killed the first part of .October. Dog Warden Jack Bruce attested that the kill was “definitely dogs, ’ ’ and there was no question about that, but there was a question of how much toj>ay. Bruce went downstairs to the tax records and ascertained that Lee’s sheep had been assessed at $35, but Foster had some questions of his own.
“I doubt if one of these things would bring $5,’’ he said, “Sheep are a bad risk anyway. Maybe we should set a minimum of $20— I mean, not go over that figure, unless the sheep was pure bred or something like that. That thing might not bring but three or four dollars on the market.’’
“The county’s not paying it; the dog fund’s paying it,” commented Commonwealth’s Attorney George Davis.
“Well, I think we should .set a top figure of $20 for the assessment or something like that and let the people know that’s all we’ll
92.6%