A man who chased his dog away after it had killed his cows did not give up responsibility for the animal.

And Kim Ingemann failed in his appeal against a $3,000 fine which he was ordered to pay after the dog went on a killing rampage.

Ingemann was found to be the owner of the Japanese Akita dog which was part of a pack of dogs which slaughtered sheep and goats between August 1991 and March 1992.

The Akita is a black and brown striped dog. The breed is banned in the United Kingdom because it is believed to have been bred for fighting.

Ingemann's dog was destroyed soon after the attacks.

The facts of the case were that, in early March 1992, an employee at the Shell tank farm at Ferry Reach found three dogs in a goat pen with various dead kids scattered around the pen. One of the dogs was an Akita.

Some days later there was another attack at the neighbouring Esso installation in which a number of sheep were killed. Although no-one witnessed the attack the dog warden investigated and found sheep hair and digested blood in the Akita's stool.

In January 1991 the dog warden had complaints from Ingemann about stray dogs in the Ferry Reach area and captured certain dogs. Among them was the Akita.

But after complaints from his son's mother, Ingemann looked after the dog while the woman was moving house. Ingemann had picked up the dog from the SPCA, signing for it as the owner.

Mr. Justice Ground said: "Having recovered the dog from the SPCA in January 1991 the appellant admits that he kept it, and provided for its care until mid-February when, he claims, it started running wild with a pack of dogs.

"He said it would be tied up, but kept slipping its collar. The last time this happened was in May 1991.

"In March, he noticed cats and chickens in his neighbourhood maimed or killed and in March or April some of his cows were injured on their legs. He called the dog warden to take it away.'' Ingemann said that some his cows were killed in May or June of the same year and he again asked the dog warden to take the dog.

The judge felt the magistrate in the original case in July, 1993, the Wor. Kim White formed a poor view of Ingemann's credibility.

Mr. Justice Ground said: "Even if the magistrate had accepted the appellant's story I do not see how that would have assisted him. This is because of the statutory duties and liabilities.

"The reality of this case is that the dog warden captured this dog in January 1991 in response to a complaint from the appellant.

"If things had been left there the problems that followed would never have occurred. However the appellant intervened and recovered the dog, and from then on he was responsible for it until he got someone else to take over that responsibility.

"The fact that the dog became a nuisance does not acquit the appellant of that responsibility, nor would the fact that he had reported it to the dog warden and asked him to take control of the dog.

"Only if the warden had in fact taken control would the defendant have been relieved of the obligation which he would so officiously assumed in the first place.'' In dismissing the appeal the judge said the magistrate had obviously taken a lot of care in coming to his decision and he could see no reason to interfere with his judgment.