3-week reprieve for 'vicious’ dog

Press, 2 June 1979, Page 4

3-week reprieve for 'vicious’ dog

A German Shepherd dog owned by a part-time dog ranger arid which attacked a schoolgirl on February 17 and then attacked a constable on April 3 when the constable called to investigate the first complaint, was held to be "vicious” by Mr N. L. Bradford, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. He ordered the dog’s destruction.

However, the dog was given a 3-week reprieve when the Magistrate on finding the two complaints had been proved, was told that the dog had been given to a new owner.

The Magistrate reserved his decision on the destruction order until June 22, and intimated he might have to re-open the hearing. Sergeant M. P. Caldwell said the police would still seek the animal’s destruction.

The defendant, Clifford Arthur Goodwin, aged 74, a part-time dog ranger for the Riccarton Borough Council, pleaded not guilty to the two offences.

The first complaint, relating to February 17, was that the dog was dangerous and not under proper control, and that an order be made that the defendant keep it under proper control. The second complaint, on April 3, sought the dog’s destruction.

Mr M. F. McClelland appeared for the defendant. A schoolgirl, Therese Irene Kilpatrick, aged 12, and her father, Phillip John Kilpatrick, gave evidence of the girl being attacked by the dog when she entered the defendant’s property on a school bottle drive. ,

She was attacked and bitten at the gate. Her father, who was sorting bottles 15m away, heard her scream and the dog growling and scared it off the girl. The defendant called out from a window that the girl was trespassing and that they should leave. The girl had to go to hospital where the bite marks in her side were treated and tetanus injection given. Constable C. P. Healey gave evidence of calling to investigate the complaint on April 3. The dog rushed towards him from the rear of the premises. It was tied up by the defendant, but as the constable was leaving after trying to serve a paper on the defendant the dog attacked him. He also received a tetanus injection for a bite wound. The defendant, on evidence, said he did not see the dog attack the girl. Nor did it attack the constable. It just became excited and jumped up with its paws on the constable. The constable had been waving the paper about and his speech became louder and louder, exciting the dog.

The defendant’s sister Melva Tamar Victoria Wright, said the constable told her he had only been scratched by the dog. She never saw it bite him.

The Magistrate, holding the charges proved, said the dog had been running free and although the property was well fenced and with a gate he had taken no steps to warn the public of the dog’s presence with a sign. Notwithstanding the first attack he again took no steps to ensure the safety of the public.