MOTORISTS AND DOGS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVIII, Issue XLVIII, 6 March 1914, Page 1

MOTORISTS AND DOGS

i LIABLE IF THEY RUN OVER i them:.

Some time ago" the Christchurch Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals asked the Crown Law Office at» Wellington for a legal opinion as to the liability of motorists who wantonly ran over dogs on the road. The Law Office replied that they could olily give advice to Government departments on law ■ j points, and suggested that an opinion should be obtained from the Society's solicitors. This was obtained, and a setter from Messrs Duncan, Cotterill ; and Stringer was read at the- last meeti ing. The opinion stated that a motorist i -..h0 ill-treated a dog was liable, no'mat-. ' ter by what means. Section 24 of the i Dogs' Registration Act states that "any dog on any highway or in any enclosed. , place may be destroyed if it rushes out, i attacks, or startles, any- person, -horse,, { cattle, or other animal, whereby the life' | or limbs of any person are .endangered, or any. property' is endangered or -injured." That did not mean that a motorist could drive recklessly over A dog and escape either civil or criminal liability. The question was entirely, one of fact. If a,motorist by his reckless or furious driving killed or injured a dog, then that motorist was hable civillv. A most satisfactory definition of; "cruelty" was given as unnecessary abuse of the animal. Guilty knowledge must be proved, however, otherwise the person could, not be said to be" guilty of cruelty. If a motorist deliberately drove over an unregistered dog sleeping in a public -highway he would .be clearly guilty of cruelty and liable to prosecution under the Police Act..