DOG ATTACKS CHILD

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXV, Issue 300, 5 December 1935, Page 4

DOG ATTACKS CHILD

Damages Against Owner HAUMOANA BEACH INCIDENT Judgment for £6, the full amount claimed, togethei with £3 19/9 costs, was given to plaintiff by Mr J. Miller, S.M., in the Hastings Magistrate’s Court yesterday in a claim for damages arising from injuries caused to a child who was attacked by a dog on the Haumuana beach on September 20. The plaintiff was F. E. Evans, of Haumuana (Mr W. S. Averill) and the defendant W. Keetley, also of Haumoana (Mr H. Holderness). The amount of the claim was made flip of costs incurred for hospital expenses for plaintiff’s injured child, and for taxi and bus expenses. After hearing the evidence His Worship remarked that there was no question that the dog bit the child, but it had been suggested that the child had been contributorily negligent by interfering with tbo defendant’s kit. There was no definite proof of what induced the dog to attack the child. If there were a risk of angering the dog by interfering with the kit, then defendant should have sent the child away. The defendant’s attempt to provide a defence had failed. Outlining the case, Mr AveriU said that it was plaintiff’s four-year-old son who had been attacked. The father and the child were sitting 011 Uaumoaua beach, and the child was poking at a kahawhai that defendant bad caught. Defendant’s dog, a black collie, without provocation attacked the little boy, and put iiis teeth right through the flesh of the boy’s cheek. He was in hospital fur ten days as a result. Giving evidence, Frank EdwMd Evans said that the itn« had not been

provoked. It leapt on the boy, and attacked him savagely. Witness beat off the dog by kicking and stoning him. To Mr Holderness, witness said he knew that the dog was “a terror to fight,” but lie did not think it would attack children. The child had often been near the dog, and had not been attacked previously. The buy was poking the fish with a small stick, and was not told to keep away from Keetley’e bag. The boy went and got a knife from a bag at Keetley’s request, and took it to him. It was not true that the boy got the knife of his own accord, or that witness told the boy to leave the knife and the bag alone. To His Worship: Defendant said to witness that he had never known the dog to be savage before, and that the boy must have been “touching something.” Frederick Richardson said that the dog had the child down, and was worrying it by the head. Defendant seemed to do nothing to drive the dog away and patted it after Evans and the cnlld had gone. Defendant gave evidence that he told the child “not to interfere with things” in the bag. The child was still sitting near the bag when witness had caught “a fish or two.” Witness remembered that Evans told the child to put down defendant’s knife. Witness did not tell the child to bring him the knife. When tho dog attacked tile child, witness hurried up to it and drove it off. No kicks were needed to drive the dog off. He did not see the witness Richardson. A. M. Schultz stated that he did not see Richardson, but there were two men standing about six chains away. Evans was standing up at the time of the attack, and had his back to the scene. Witness attracted Evans's attention to the incident. Cecil Abbott gave evidence that his four children often played with the dog, and still played with it. The dog was absolutely harmless, and witness felt no fears about it.