ATTACK BY ALSATIAN

Evening Star, Issue 22816, 26 November 1937, Page 7

ATTACK BY ALSATIAN

POLICE COURT SEQUEL DOG OWNER CHARGED Stressing the point that an Alsatian might quite easily maul and kill a child, the magistrate (Mr H. W. Bundle) in the Police Court this morning, asked James APGlaslvan Sloan if he were prepared to have destroyed a dog which had attacked a girl. After a short adjournment, the_ defendant agreed to this course being taken, and the heaving was adjourned until Monday, the magistrate intimating that if the dog were destroyed, he would probably enter a conviction only. Sloaq was charged with being the owner of a dangerous dog. and with keeping a savage dog which attacked Aileen Patricia Hannagan, endangering her limbs, and with being the owner of an unregistered dog. The defendant at first entered pleas of not guilty, but subsquently changed them to guilty, tho first-named change being withdrawn. Senior-sergeant Packer asked for an adjournement for a week. Probably the defence would be that a daughter of the defendant took the dog away without the consent of her parents. Defendant was still the owner, and was still liable. The defendant said that the dog urns registered yesterday. He was under the impression that it was registered all along. The Magistrate: Why did you plead not guilty? Tho defendant said that the man he bought the dog from told him three times that the dog was registered. Defendant admitted that the dog had attacked the complainant under provocation. It was an Alsatian. The Senior Sergeant said that according to statements this was a playful dog, and sprang at the girl without any warning. “ They are moat unpleasant brutes to have anything to do with,” commented His Worship. The Senior Sergeant said the defendant refused to destroy this dog. The previous owner said the dog was being kept only for the defendant. The chilj was badly bitten, and a civil action was being brought for damages. The Magistrate said that a brute like an Alsatian might quite easily maul and kill a child. He asked the defendant if he were prepared to destroy tho dog, and a short adjournment was granted to enable the defendant to consult with the senior sergeant. When the case was recalled the Senior Sergeant said that he had talked with the defendant, who took a reasonable view and now pleaded guilty. He had consented to have the dog destroyed. The Senior Sergeant asked for leave to withdraw the charge of possession of a dangerous dog. The defendant was a working man, and there would be a civil action. The Magistrate agreed to the withdrawal of this charge, and formally adjourned the other two charges until Monday to enable the dog to be destroyed. If the dog were destroyed His Worship said he would probably enter a conviction only, in view of proceedings being taken.