"MAN-EATING" DOG IN COURT

Taranaki Daily News, 24 September 1928, Page 5

"MAN-EATING" DOG IN COURT

“PLEASE REMOVE EXHIBIT A” SEVERAL NEIGHBOURS ATTACKED. There were amusing features about a dog case heard before Mr. T. E. Maunsell, S.M., at the Blenheim Magistrate's Court, but there were also painful features, as a number of people had been attacked by the animal. Counsel for the plaintiff stressed the fact that the dog was a sly and surreptitious creature, which made a practice of sneaking up behind people and biting them ‘’when they least expected it!” The parties to the action were the plaintiff, Nora Mary Le Poidevin, of Spring Creek, represented by Mr. F. F. Reid, and the defendant J. B. Jacquemin, also of Spring Creek, represented by Mr, A. E. L. Scantlebury. Mrs. Le Poidevin claimed £7 6s as damages for having been bitten by the dog and also prayed for an order that it should be destroyed, as it was not under proper control.

The evidence for tho plaintiff was that she was a neighbour of the defendant, and. in passing his house on July 25, the dog bit her leg. She had to be taken to Blenheim for medical attention, and she was laid up for about 10 days, having to secure medical attention on two other occasions.

There then entered the box in quick succession the plaintiff’s son, Harold Le Poidevin, who had. the back of his leg snapped at by. the dog two years ago, A. W. Robinson, who had had his trousers torn by the animal, George Dawes, who had had his heel seized, and Tom Wilkins, who had been attacked when attempting to remove some harness al Mr. Jacqueniiu’s place. By this time the dog had a very unsavory reputation in Court, counsel for the plaintiff having referred to it as a “man-eater.” Consequently there was a thrill of interest when Mr. Scantleburv asked the defendant to produce the dog in Court. The animal, ■leashed with a rope, entered the Court most unwillingly, but finally took up a position about an inch away from Mr. Reid, in whom he appeared to take a deep interest, fixing him with a calculating stare which counsel endured for some minutes. Finally Mr. Reid observed: “If you are quite finished with Exhibit A, I would suggest that you remove him from the Court- (Laughter.) The Magistrate: Why not take him round to your side of the table, Mr. Scantleburv?

Mr. Reid: A very happy idea, your Worship. Accordingly the dog was taken round to the other side of the table, where he divided his attention between the unconscious Mr. Scantlebuiy's trousers as he addressed the Court and the conscious representative of the Express. Tho defendant and his daughter gave evidence that the dog was well behaved, and their trump card was the production of J. Morrison, the Court bailiff, who related that he was not attacked by the dog when he went to serve the summons. Morrison was invested with the halo of glory which surrounds a lion-tamer when he announced that he had even opened the dog’s mouth and inspected its teeth. hr. Scantleburv said he could not prove that the dog was aware that Mr. Morrison was serving a summons, but he felt bound to suggest that the fact that it had not attacked the bailiff was evidence of its great good nature. The Magistrate said the biting of Mrs. Le Poidevin was admitted, and the only question was that of damages. He did not consider her claim excessive, and he gave, judgment for the amount claimed, £7 6s. In regard to the complaint that the dog was net under proper control and was dangerous, the fact that a dog bit a human being demonstrated that it was dangerous, and this dog had bitten several people. “However,” concluded the Magistrate, ‘T won't put on the black cap and sentence him to death, but I will make an order that he is to be kept under proper control. He must, of course, be allowed a reasonable amount of freedom, but he must lie kept on the chain in the future more than he has in the past.”