BULL-DOG V. HORSE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13834, 20 February 1909, Page 2

BULL-DOG V. HORSE.

A SAVAGE ATTACK,

At the Magistrate's' C'onrt yesterday beiore Mr C. A. Wray, S.M., I}. IS. de Looze, a well-known .singer and musician of the town., 'was charged with permitting his dog to worry a horse, the property of J. O'Donoghue, and also with allowing the dog to rush out and startle the said horse. The first charge was laid under the Police Offences Act and the second under the Dog Registration Act. The defendant admitted that he was the owner of the dog, but stated that he knew nothing about- the attack the dog was alleged to hare made on the horse. The first witness called by the police was Michael O'Donoghue, eighteen years of age, who stated that on the morning of the 3lst j January, he was in charge of a milkcart in James street, Kensington, and was engaged in delivering milk at the various houses on his round. At about i .40 a.m. he was passing near the Park, when a. brindled bulldog rushed out of the Domain and chased the carl, eventually getting in front of it. The witness stopped 'the cart in front of Mr Smallridge's gate and got out of the cart, when the bulldog started flying at the horse's throat, and managed to get a firm hold on the terrified animal's lower jaw. at once went for the dog, and did his best to drive it away from the horse, and after some little time succeeded in dome so. The dog then turned his unwelcome attentions to the boy himself, and in the tussle that followed managed to get in a bite on his arm. It was not a very severe bite. About this time Mr Smallridge, hearing the noise, came out of the gate, and aftei a little time managed to secure tlve dog, which he tied up. When the horse/was examined it was found that it was bleeding from the nose, arid in a gre'iat;state of fright, and the witness added tTiat even now the horse remembered the occurrence, and showed unmistakable signs of terror when passing 'the scene of the attack. Hetlry Smallridge, wool-, buyer, gave evidence' to the effect that he heard someone crying out-for help, and looking out of his bedroom' window he saw a bulldog jumping at the horse's throat. The horse had backed the milk cart against the side of the road, and was rearing .and trying to shake off its assailant. The witness dressed with all speed and ran out to the boy's assistance. He found five other people gathered round, and it took the. combined efforts of, those present for a ipace of about two minutes, pelting the dog with stones, to make him loose his hold on the horse's lower jaw. The horse had also been bitten on the hind legs, which were bleeding, and the dog's tactics seemed to be to rush alternately at the horse fore and aft. TVlien the horse reared the dog dropped •off, and went for his hindquarters; when the horse's forelegs dropped to earth again, the dog attacked him about the head. The witness did not see the dog attack the boy. It was apparently a well-bred bulldog, and from its conduct' that morning witness did not thing it was fit to be at large. There was no one with the dog at the time, and shortly afterwards he lay down quietly enough in the grass, when witness, caught him and chained him up. The owner came for him later, and the dog seemed quiet enough in his charge. B. B. de Looze, defendant, the owner of the dog, said he was a musician by profession. He was not on the spot when the alleged attack was made, and ho could not account for the dog's action at all, unless he had been teased or tormented, for he had been in the witness's possession for two years, ever since he was a puppy in fact, and never on any occasion had he shown signs of illtemper or ferocity. He had taken the dog to town with him on Saturday morning, and whilst he was in a shop the dog ran off. He had made many enquiries as to the animal's whereabouts, but had not found him till the next day, when he was informed he was tied up on ,Mr Smallridge's premises. In reply to a question from the Bench, defendant said he had given the dog away, and it had been taken out into the country.

His Worship said it was impossible to find out whether the dog had received any provocation or not. The fact remained that a savage assault had been committed by the animal, and even supposing the boy had provoked it, .yet the horse had been attacked, and that surely was innocent of any provocation. The dog seemed to have been quiet enough when in the company of its owner, perhaps it was a case of "music hath charms," etc. The defendant had taken steps to prevent any recurrence of the offence, and as the police did not press for any severe penalty, he would convict and discharge the defendant on ,payment of witnesses' expenses, 9s.