INJURED DOG

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 26, 31 July 1933, Page 9

INJURED DOG

CASE CONCLUDED

DECISION RESERVED

Tho hearing of tho case in which E. E. Leightou claimed £25 damages from Thomas Charles Webb, veterinary adviser to Hie Tail-Waggers' Club of New Zealand (Inc.), and tlie club itself, concluded at the Magistrate's Court today, tho Magistrate (Mr. E. Pago) reserving his decision. The plaintiff alleged that Webb had so unskilfully treated his Alsatian dog, which was suffering from an injured hip, that it had to be destroyed.

Evidence for tho defendant was concluded on July 19. Tho defendant contended that he had at all times diagnosed the trouble as a dislocated hip and had treated the dog in the recognised manner for that injury. This morning Mr. G. G. G. Watson, who appeared for tho plaintiff, recalled the plaintiff and his wife to rebut the statements of the defendant.

The plaintiff, in evidence, denied that Webb had ever suggested that the dog had a dislocated hip. Tho only time the hip had been mentioned was when witness pointed out a lump on the dog's hip. AVebb said that the hip was only slightly out and that the- main trouble was between the thigh aud the knee. Until witness caiho to Court he had never at any time heard that the dog had been treated for a dislocated hip. The defendant had not stated that the dog's stifle was broken. Webb did not say what was wrong with the dog, but said that the- main trouble was with the leg.

Mrs. Leighton gave her version of what was said at the first interview between Webb and her husband regarding the dog's injury. She said that sho had overheard Webb say that the trouble was with the stifle. If her husband had said that Webb had not mentioned anything about the stifle, he must have been ;mistaken.

Mr. W. E. Leicester, who appeared for the Tail-Waggers' Club, thon addressed tho Court on behalf of the club. Tho club, he said, was in the unfortnnato position of being used as a chopping block in what Was virtually a dispute between Webb and Leighton, and second, between Webb and Crossley. So far as the evidence against tho club was 'concerned, there was nothing to prove that Webb had eves been hold out to be anything more than voterinary adviser to the club. There was nothing to show that the club had ever held him to be a man qualified to operate on dogs, and the club could not be held liable for work that1 he did outside the club.

It was submitted by Mr. W. P. Boilings on behalf of the defendant, that tho injury to the dog had been correctly diagnosed and that>tho injury had been treated in the proper'manlier, Mr. Watson, for the plaintiff, submitted that the club was liable for negligence in selecting a man as veterinary adviser who had no professional qualifications. Counsel then referred to tho. conflict of. evidence between the plaintiff and the defendant Webb, and submitted that the plaintiff's evidonce was more to bo relied on than that of the defendant. .

The Magistrate, said.that he would give his decision in writing.