DANGEROUS DOG

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21341, 7 December 1934, Page 19

DANGEROUS DOG

PROBLEM FOR COURT OWNER SUGGESTS "PROBATION" FOR FIRST I3ITE I Mgjung a plea with much feeling for the life of his client's dog, Mr F. D. Sargent, counsel in the Magistrate's Court, yesterday, argued that every dog was entitled to its first bite; and he suggested that this one, which he admitted had taken advantage of that privilege, might he "placed on probation," rather than be destroyed. According to information SeniorSergeant J. Fox had been given, the dog was so ashamed when its owner reprimanded it that it disappeared for a considerable time and had reappeared only yesterday morning. Cyril Hubert Newton, for whom Mr F. D. Sargent appeared, pleaded guilty to being the owner of a dog which attacked lan Matthew Mac Donald on November 17. The charge was laid under Section 24 of the Dog Registration Act, by which the owner or keeper of a dangerous dog is liable to a fine not exceeding £5. The case had been previously adjourned. Mr Sargent said that Newton was very much attached to the dog and anxious that it should not be destroyed. He suggested that it might be "placed on probation," but the magistrate thought that such a procedure would not give much satisfaction to the next boy or girl who was bitten. Mr Sargent: Every dog is entitled to his first bite, as your Worship knows. In this case there is no evidence of more than that. Mr Sargent said that a veterinary surgeon had been consulted about the advisability of having the dog's front teetli removed. "For myself, I would rather have my teeth out than be killed," he said. "I am only making a plea for the dog's life." The magistrate said he did not wish to put himself "off side" with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals with whose cause he sympathised. Senior-Sergeant Fox said that the dog had made two attacks in the same afternoon. With another dog it had rushed at a man, and five minutes later by itself it rushed out again and inflicted a bite. The constable in the district was satisfied that it was a dangerous dog. In Disgrace The senior-sergeant spoke of an interview he had had with the defending party, in which it was stated that the owner reprimanded his dog. Newton had pointed his finger at the animal and said, VYou've disgraced yourself and disgraced me," whereupon the dog disappeared. The seniorsergeant thought liiaf Newton was deceiving him; he had refused to give any statement in writing. This morning the dog had turned up in the country. It seemed quite clear to him that there had been some trickery, of which counsel was not aware. Mr Sargent said that as soon as the dog reappeared the owner had put it under control, and it was now with the veterinary surgeon. The magistrate adjourned the case until Tuesday, December 11, to allow j the police to bring information under another section of the act.