SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 12099, 17 March 1910, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Cooper.) CLAIM FOR, DAMAGES. The hearing was continued yesterday of th c case Mabel Field, of Gisborne, an infant by her guardian ad liten, Maurice Field, of Gisborne, tailor ana Elizabeth Field, of Gisborne, married woman, plaintiff (Mr L. T. Burnard), and Alexander Thomson, of Gisbomu, florist, defendant (Mr W. L. Rees, instructed by Mr A.. Rees). The jur/meii were : J. Grant, J. Steel, B. T. Biggins, and E. S. Kimptou (foreman). The following further evidence was given : — Dr. Coker gave evidence as to attending the child at the time of the injury,. She had three wounds on the throat), scratches on the face and thigh. The largest wound- was an inch and a qua,vter long. The others were more lacer ated. A By Mr Rees : Defendant had suggested that the wounds might have been treated by injection to, remove the scars but th;© mother declined on account of the pain it would incur. By his Honor : He thought the two small scars might be submitted to an operation, and the Uvo small scars cut out. If it did not heal by first intention tine scar would of course be worse. By Mr Burnard : The injection treatment wouldi he purely an experiment. Joseph Coteril l, an employee at Tatapouri hotel, gave evidence that he drove up just when the child had been injured. Blood w«s coming , from, the wounds and he drove the child away at once, but finding threei doctors out he took it to the hospital, where the wounus were dressed. On returning to the house he toak a stick and tried to drive the dog from xvnder the house, but it chewed- the stick as if mad. He had personally tried to drive "the dog away from the neighborhood and had heard many complaints respecting the animal. „ . Mabel Field, one of the plaintiffs, the child stated to have been injured by the dog, said she did not like the dog; it was so very fierce. She never played with this dog. She' had been sent round to defendant's to tell him to take the dog away.- One time he said her mother was a perfect nuisance, alwiys complaining of the dog. Sometimes defendant took tjh© dog away, and sometimes he left it till the next day. On January 3 slie was turning round to speak to her sister when slie felt the dog at^ her throat, and she looked, and it was biting, her like a bone. She kicked the dog off, and went to put- her foot on the step when it caught her by the thigh. She called to Mrs Smelley, who was staying at their place, fitness detailed the subsequent treatment' of the wounds. By Mr Rees: A few days before the date of tine accident the dog was making such a noise that her brother and two other children beat it to make it stop. She did not attempt to shove a stick down its mouth. The two Fraser boys had asked that the dog should be driven away and not encouraged. Isaac Fisher, . fruiterer, . stated that he had frequently noticed a savage dog under the verandah of Field's house. It generally rushed out at him. t Bertie Field, a, boy describing himseif "as getting on for 10," said. the- dog was of a. savagey wild temper. He did not play with the dog and he did not like it^-rit was too sa\tage. He had taken messages to defendant, who had told him' to thrash the dog. He had done so once or twice. , Winifred Field, daughter of plaintiff, also gave evidence. By his Honor : She saw the dog bite her sister. As she turned round* she saw it biting lier thigh. Mrs Smelley, a lodger with plaintiff, stated she had been accustomed to dogs as her husband had .five, but she was frightened of the one m question, because it had rushed at bet and pulled a stick out of her hand. The children were afraid of the. dog, and never fed it. Oki one occasion when the dog! bit a neighbor's boy she herself requested Mrs Thomson to have, the dog removed. She was present when Mabel was bitten ; the child came running m to her with the blood, running from ■ her neok. The dog was : sometMng between a retriever and a collie. Mr Rees statgd^ta. reply ,to his. Honor, that the dogi?raa : sinceV been/ killed.;". -. Edward W. , Harvey, accountant, stated that he had resided m the neighborhood), and .this, wife had complained of th\e dog being about the premises and bein# none too safe. He threw stones at it under his own house to get it away. He sent round to defendant, and next evening when he returned it had gone. Frederick Gough, dairyman, said he had seen a savage' dog at Field's, and he had to be 'careful of it, as it had tried to nip him. Sydney T. Richards, butter t dealer, stated that when serving Field's be had seen the dog, which he considered was very, savage. It hod rushed at him. ' .Samuel Moore, greengrocer, said he had also seen tlie dog at Field's. It was very savage — a mad dog. It tried to get hold of his leg. Annie Young, dressmaker, formerly a resident adjoining plaintiff's, said she had also seen the dog m the. neighborhood. ' , > Mrs Thomas, of Makaraka, formerly residing m the neighborhood m question, said she had driven tlie dog away because it had made 'a snap at her little boy. Another day it nearly snapped the whip out of her hand. . Rose Kerwin, maid employed at the vicarage, gave evidence as to requesting defendant to take the dog away. Defendant said he . would do away with it, bwt had some difficulty m getting it away, ilt was a ferocious animal, and the 'children never encouraged it.. Mrs WKllisj aY neighbor -of -Mrs Field, stated she had thrown hot water on the dog one day. It was admitted without prejudice that the medical fee was £7 7s, and. cost of medicine --62. This concluded the case for plaintiffs, and at this stage (5.20 p.m.)' the Court adjourned till 10 a.m, to-day. '