Hi, My name is Philip. I am an attorney with over 16 years experience. Hopefully I can help you with your legal question.
The great thing about small claims? The formal rules of evidence and procedure do not apply.
So hearsay? Allowed. Chain of custody
on evidence? Not required.
Basically, small claims is a "peoples court" where you can tell your story and (hopefully) present evidence to the court to convince the judge on your position.
Your neighbor (the one who sued you) has the burden of proof
She must prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that your animals caused the harm to her animals.
Now....if, for example, she can testify that she watched your dogs attack her animal? That can be tough to defend. YOu would either need to impeach her credibility (show she is lying or is prone to lie) or impeach her ability to perceive (so, for example, if this happened at night it may be she could not clearly identify your dogs)
The evidence you describe? That is admissible (since the rules of evidence do not apply)
And it is relevant (is something the court will want to consider) IF you can show either
1. She did not see what dogs attacked her animal
2. That she did see the dogs that attacked her animal, but her perception may have been flawed (eg due to the conditions/weather or anything that can cause a person to improperly perceive something)
BotXXXXX XXXXXne: the evidence is admissible and sounds like good evidence for your case