A SAVAGE DOG.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5484, 14 March 1910, Page 4

A SAVAGE DOG.

At the Magistrate's Conit m Tb >r • day, hfi-n> A.r R W. Pyer, Thomas Mabey was cnar^td tbftt on Fib. 9 h? was the nwi<fr of a <o!Hk Pog which at ncl ed Mrs G. -A. Ward, and alro ntiackc-t Desraoi.d citearman. (Y.iiFtable ?*ra< kp<sole pr< ?e< uted. Mr I 1) Hie* appeart-d fur deft i di at, and explained that his client v- as unable to utten'J. It vas "elided o bear tLe charges separately. Mrs G. A. Ward dc-josed that on Feb. 9 she passed by the coiner of Mr Nixon's hotel on to the Strand. Just when passing the hotel two dogs ran ; out and seized hold of ber clothing. She turned round asd spoke to the \ dogs and they then ma ie off. As far as witness kntw they were collie doga. SW the doga again, when returning home later, under Mr Mabey's trap. Constable Stackpoole testified that on the aftercoon of Ftb. 9 he was stanJing near the corter of Nixon's hotd. fc'aw Mrs Ward coming along. Two dogs ran out from under Mabey's trap, one being in advance of the other. Mrs Waid was savagely attacked. Subsequently went into the hotel and saw Mabry, and the latter denied ownership. Mal>ey said tte dog belonged to his SMi. Understood that Mabey at d his son reside J at the same residence. 'I hoinas R Nixon, junior, deposed — Mabey said the dog belonged to his (Mabey's) son and he would see that it was shot when he went home. This closed the evidence on the first charge and the second one was then proceeded witb. Desmond fcfhearman, a little boy 6Ayears of age, stated tbat a dog bit him on the thigh "near the hotel. There were marks on his leg. The dog came at witness twice. Constable StackDoole was standing near a post close by. Cross-examined by Mr Phillips — There were two dogs. Thomas R. Nixon (junior) stated that he was in the bar of the hotel on Feb. 9. Heard a youngster screaming and went out to see what was the matter. The boy was still cryiug and Constable Stackpoole was with him. Witness did not see the dogs when he came out. Heard Mabey deny the ownership of the dog. Shortly aftei the occurrence the dogs went homt with Mr Mabey. Subsequently heard Mabey say he had destroyed the dog Constable Steel; poole d posed thai on the date stated he was standing near Nixon's hotel. After Mrs Ware was attacked the dogs ran and laic down under the trap. The dog whicl attached Mrs Ward almost iminediatdly afterwards bit the boy shearman Saw marks ou the boy at his own home Mabey admitted to witness tbat he owned one if the dogs but that the one that attasked Mri Ward and bit the boy belonged to hii son. Mabey said he had told his soi that he did not want the dog to follow him. Mabey refused there and ther to tie up the dogs, and allowed their to be at liberty until he left for home Mabey later told witness tbat the do*: had been destroyed. Mr Phillips submitted that th< prosecution must prove: firstly, thai the dog did bite the person named ii the information ; secondly, the ownership of the dog ; thirdly, that e\ilenc< must be produced that the limbs if th< persons attacked were in actual danger fourthly, it should be proved thai Hariogton Street was a highway. The Magistrate said he considerec defendant was the keeper of the dog and the correct thing had been dene ii having the dog destroyed. As far at Mrs Ward's case was concerned h< would dismiss the information. At regarded the second charge he amended the information to read that defendanl was the keeper of the dog and said the question of Harington 8 re. t being c highway was purely te;hnical.— Mis Worship iutiicttd a. fine of £1 and costs 11s on the secji.u charge.