THE WAYS OF PETS.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LX, Issue 10826, 24 March 1932, Page 4

THE WAYS OF PETS.

THE MEANING OF A DOG’S BARK A case of interest to motor owners who leave dogs in cars was heard in the House of Lords by Lords Dunedin, Warrington, Atkin, Macmillan, and Thankerton, says a London paper. The appellant, Mr Oliver George Fardon, of Wembley, was passing a car parked near Oxford Street when an Airedale dog in the car sprang up and broke a window. A splinter of glass destroyed the sight of Mr Pardon’s left eye. A jury in Mr Justice Talbot's Court, in the King’s Bench Division, awarded Mr Farndon £2OOO against the owner of the car, Mr HarcourtRiviugton, but the Court of Appeal quashed the verdict, holding that there had been no negligence. Mr Martin O’Connor for Mr Farndon, suggested that the dog was angry. Lord Dunedin said that a dog was not necessarily angry when it barked. He had a large acquaintance with dogs and knew them well. Lord Warrington: I have a dog that begins to bark most furiously whenever he is taken for a walk.

Mr O’Connor: But this dog was infuriated.

Lord Dunedin: Dancing about and barking fdriously is not for a dog the same thing as being infuriated. If a dog is well trained and has a wish for anything, he indicates his preference modestly at first, but if he is disregarded he may make a great noise about it; but he is only adopting his proper means of drawing attention. Mr O’Connor, in reply to Lord Dunedin, said he had come there to argue that it was negligent to leave a dog in a car. Lord Dunedin: Would you say the same of a fidgety small boy? No one should leave a dog for an hour in a saloon car without recognising that it might cause damage or loss to a, third party. The same precaution should be taken with a small boy. You could never ascertain what would happen next. Mr O’Connor submitted that the Appeal Court went wrong when they paid so much attention to the doctrine of freedom which the law applied to domesticated animals. That a cat was free to eat a neighbour’s canary was not the point. Lord Macmillan: How does the cat come by all this legal freedom? I suppose it is by walking in the footsteps of the dog. He has his immunities when he walks alone simply because the roaming dog has them. One almost doubts the propriety of this extension of privilege. A dog may be said, to be a reasonable being, capable of being entrusted with a certain amount of freedom, but nobody could possibly control or trust a cat. Lord Atkin: There are dogs so sophisticated and human that their most natural place is by the fireside. Why should not some of them be at home in a motor-car and like to be there. Is not the broken glass a pure accident? Mr Farndon has to face that word “accident.” , The hearing was adjourned.