DEATH OF AN ALSATIAN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21998, 6 July 1933, Page 7

DEATH OF AN ALSATIAN

ALLEGED UNSKILFUL TREATMENT I IV.H UNITKi Press Assik iaiiii.v I WELLINGTON, July 5. Evidence for the defence in the action on which E. R. Leighton, of I’etoue, is claiming £25, the value of an Alsatian, from the Tailwaggers’ Club and T. C. Webb, was continued before Mr E. Page in the Magistrate's Court to-day. The plaintiff alleges that the dog had to be destroyed because of negligent and unskilful treatment by Webb, who, it is contended, was acting as veterinary adviser to the club. For the defendant, Mr F. Rollings contended that much more was involved in the case than the market value of a dog, and he invited the court to regard the case as an attempt to destroy the business built up by Webb in treating dogs and other animals. Medical evidence would be called, he said, to establish that thp treatment given was careful and proper for the injury. It was contended, also, if the court were to find that Webb had been negligent, that the plaintiff could not have judgment against both Webb and the Tailwaggers’ Club. in evidence Webb said he had been employed by the Department of Agriculture as an inspector of stock for 40 years. While there he passed the veterinary examination and obtained a certificate as a first grade inspector of stock. As veterinaiy adviser to the Tailwaggers’ Club he got nothing from the club but had to look for remuneration from the owners of the dogs. Advice was given free to club members. Witness said he informed plaintiff that his dog had a dislocated hip, and described at length the treatment given. Subsequently he found a hip joint out again, and he offered to put it back and replace the splints. Leighton asked if the dog would breed with the joint out, and, on being told that it would, said he would leave it. Witness said the joint came out because the bandage had been chewed and because the dog had had too much freedom. To counsel for the plaintiff (Mr G. Watson), witness denied that he used the letters L. 1.0.5. after his name with any intention of deceiving anyone. It was the printer’s suggestion to use the letters as an abbreviation of late inspector of stock. The hearing will be resumed on Wednesday next.