DOGS AND THE LAW.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 224, 21 September 1929, Page 12

DOGS AND THE LAW.

e " 8 A VERY VEXED QUESTION. PUBLIC OPINION IN AUSTRALIA AND CANADA. THE "DOG AND GOAT ACT." i. Kecenfc litigation regarding the control j of dogs at Devonport has focussed s interest on a subject which has occupied l i legal attention in many lands over a long period of years.. For some reason or other, the dog has, t from time to time, obtruded itself as a special legal problem. Laws and by-laws f dealing with canine control have been 1 passed at intervals since the reign of 1 King Charles the Second, and in the 3 Dominions, as well as in the Old Coun--2 try,'special legislation has been enacted. 3 A correspondent- of the Sydney " Sun" i recently asked whether a dog straying without a collar of identification is liable to be picked up by anyone and ' summarily put to death, even though the owner is known. This matter is settled in Australia by the Dog and Goat Act, which contains: some quaint and antiquated legislation. It provides that "every dog, whether." registered or not, found at large in any

part of any city, town, or police district, without being under the immediate custody, protection, or control of some competent person, may, unless such dog lias a collar round its neck with tbe name and address of its owner legibly engraven thereon, be immediately killed or deiitroyijd, and all persons are hereby authorised, and all constables especially ordered to seize, kill, and destroy every such dog." In addition, the statute provides that if it is a mastiff or bulldog it must, as well as the collar, "have a muzzle securely fixed upon the mouth of such dog, so as to prevent its biting or injuring any person or property." It will be seen from ' the above words that it does not matter whether the owner of the dog is known or unknown. Where a dog is destroyed in. conformity with the Act the person who seizes and destroys it may receive a reward of 2/6. In claiming the reward it is necessary under the Act to produce the tail to a police magistrate of justice, and the tail "shall be Immediately burned or otherwise destroyed in tie presence , of such police magistrate or justice or of some person duly-appointed'by him."

" One Dog One Bite." The writer of an interesting article ir our Sydney contemporary points out that the dog has been singled out in this ancient statute for special treatment ir many ways. There was an ancient saying that "every dog is entitled, to one bite." The meaning of this phrase it due to the fact that a person is not liable for damages done by an animai unless he knew or had good reason tc believe that , the animal was. of a vicious or ferocious disposition. If a horse bit a man and he sued the owner, the owner would set up the defence that he did not know the horse was prone to bite, and that it had never shown any disposition to do so. If it bit another person he would be in. a difficult position if the second,person were to sue him. So, many years ago, the dog owner always set up tlie defence against a person who was bitten by a dog that it had never previously attacked anyone. The Dog and Goat Act singles the dog out of the animal world for special treatment in this respect by enacting that a person seeking damages from the owner for injury done by a dog need not prove " a previous mischievous propensity in such dog, or the owner's knowledge of such previous propensity, or that injury was attributable to neglect on the part of such owner." It is quite, possible that a good many Auckland householders will agree with the_ sentiments expressed in a leading article which appeared recently in the \ ancouver '' Sun." It reads as follows:—l THE VAGRANT DOG. .1 M me • Tear > wben gardetis|

throughout the city are getting into their linest bloom, owners of dogs should take i precautions to see that, their pet animals ■ are keut off neighbours' property, i A good industrious dog,' with a tasie for canine gardening, can destroy more garden in five minutes than an amateur gardener can build up in a year. The nuisance has grown so great this >ear that unless it is checked by the efforts of dog owners, it will have to be checked by the efforts of the police and a by-law. It would be a simple matter to pass a regulation empowering the police to impound all dogs found off their owner's property. But it is not desirable to employ a law where the goodwill and thouglitfulness of dog owners will So just as well. 1 It. is no hardship on a dog to be confined by a fence within a generous yard, or, if necessary, at the end of a good long chajD. And certainly, this being a city of fine gardens, the rights of amateur gardeners must be respected above the rights and desires of wandering dogs. Quite a pathetic cry comes from a correspondent of the Vancouver paper, who writes: "The history of the present-day I city dog lover has been - a history oJ.

repeated impositions, all springing from i his mistaken belief that everybody loves' his dog. To prove this, let facts be sub--5 mitted to a candid city. t "He has kept a -swarm- of dogs* . amongst us which harass our cata,) rabbits, and poultry. "He has influenced the city give maximum protection to the actions [ of dogs. , "He ha? distributed litters of pup| j about the neighbourhood in the guise oe presents instead of drowning them. "He has kept vicious animals, sibly to guard.his property, but which, assault all those who pass, to and f'fflj along the public highway. "He has been permitted to send 6 peripatetic army of disgusting creatures to deface our flower beds, mar our grass plots, and make insanitary our pave* ments. "He has encouraged wanton destruo* tion of birds, squirrels, and other lovely ' dwellers of the houseless woods,' leaving the killed creatures to rot by the way* side. • "He has committed many other outrages, too numerous to mention here>. but which must be obvious to him. . "We therefore declare that this city should, and of right ought to be free from its over-population of dogs, and that its councils oe immediately courageous enough to bring about some legislation that would curb, if not abolish a growing abomination.'' The dog is the friend of man, but it appears fairly obvious that the writer is not the friend of dogs.