LAYING POISON.
AN INTERESTING CASE.
As attempt; was made afc the Onehunga R. M. Courb yesterday to obtafn £5 as damages for a dog that had been destroyed by poison. The plaintiff was Thonaas O'Brien, and the defendant W. H. Clay. Mr Franklin appeared for the former and Dr. Laishley for the latter. Mr O'Brien stated that on the 16th of last month he had a spaniel dog. He saw the eaid dog come out from the defendant's yard when ib was frothing at the mouth, and it soon after died. He spoke to defendant about it, when he said, " I have laid poison for cats, but it was not intended for your dog." Dr. Laiehley read a number of authorities bearing upon the subject, and said he would prove to the satisfaction of the Court that defendant had a right to lay poison upon hie own premises, or premises then in hie occupation, and that the dog was a trespasser. The R.M. said the case would be nonsuited, for no evidence had been produced proving that Mr Clay had administered poison to the dog, or that tho said dog was killed by poison laid down by the defendant.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS18900807.2.63
Bibliographic details
Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 185, 7 August 1890, Page 8
Word Count
199LAYING POISON. Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 185, 7 August 1890, Page 8
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.
Log in