RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume IIII, Issue 1761, 25 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAT. (Before W. Faisßß, Esq., B;M.) THE VICIOUS DOG NUISANCE.

John Gibbons was charged that he, being the owner of a dog, did unlawfully allow the sam« to attack one Elizabeth Winchcombe on an unenclosed place off the beach, Thames. . - ; •Mr. Bullen said the charge was brought under the 42nd section of the Dog Nuisance^ Act, and he put in Gazette No. 19, in which appeared a proclamation bringing the Act into force on the Thames. Henry Winchcombo deposed—That he resided on the beach at Shortland, and was father of Elizabeth Winchcombe. He knew Mr. Gibbons, who resided within 80ft of witness' house. He remembered the 17th—on that day he had been attracted by the barking of the dog, and ran to defend his daughter, who he found being attacked by the dog; the dog had bitten her before he could be of any service. The dog was usually kept in Mr. Gibbous' yard, and ran there after hiring bitten the girl. The place where the attack was made was an. open place—a public thoroughfare. Witness had since seen the dog tied up. The child had not —to witness' knowledge— given annoyance to the dog. Defendant declined to cross-examine, the witness. . James Kilgour deposed—That he was a duly qualified medical practioner, at Shortland. He had been called upon one day last week to attend the little girl to whom the injury had been done. Th« mark on the child's hip, which had been shown him by the mother, was a seminular mark about two inches in diameter, and had the appearance of being badly bruised; it appeared to havp been caused by a sharp instrument, The size of the mark was about what would bo embraced by the diameter of a dog'i jaw ; but he would be unable to recognise it as a dog's bite had he not been previously informed by the mother. Tho defendant said that from information he had received from his family.it would appear impossible for the dogjto have inflicted the injury. He called— \ Jane Miller, who deposed—That she resided with Mr. Gibbons. Remembered Mr. Winchcombe coming into the yard and complaining of the dog having bitten his daughter. When he came the dogs (three) were in the yard, and were quiet* 'They made no noise that she heard until Mr. Winchcombe came. The dog could not have got in at the gate, as ifc was locked; and they could not jump the fence. By Mr.Bullon—The gate was opened by one of Mr. Gibbons' sons for Mr. Wiachcombe.to come in. Witncitfdiad

not been watching the dogs all the morn- ' ing—she had been in and out. The dogs could not gel under the gate, i John Gibbons, son of defendant, deposeJ—That he remembered the day on which, the injury was said to hare oc/--* curred. The gate through which Mr. Winchconibc came was opened by the dog which Mr. Winchcombe said had bitten his daughter. By defendant—The dog could not open the gate from the inside. Ife hoard Mr. Wiuchcombe admit that he had not seen the dog bite the girl. The complainant said he distinctly sftir the dog bite the girl, and had never told anybody to the contrary. ; J'he defendant said he had been away at the lime, so'could not say anything from his own personal knowledge-but from what he had been told by the different member.B of his family, the dog had been kept inside, and so could not hare been on the, scene at all Robert Bullon having been sworn,' de-posed-—That "he happened to be passing at the tirae : : ho wai called over, and the father and daughter placed themselves in t^e positions had occupied when the attack was made. The father then 1 told him that he had seen -jkhe dog do the in-? jury. The gate of [ Mir. Gibbons' jard-j was open at the time. ■ The defendant explained that ' that* might he accounted for 'by "Mr.'. Winchcombe having just previously gone out; the gate swinging from the' outside, and the dog could not open it when once it was closed, unless it)was inside: >' ■ ■'} His Worship asked the defendanjuhow he got,over the difficulty,of the plaintiff's evidence, and the mark on. the girl's leg. r Pefendant replied that he relied on the facts of the gate being only to be opened on one side, and what Mr. Wihchcombe had remarked; otb erwisc be would sooner vhave paid twico the money than have brought ilie action/ His Worship «aid the fact of the caso * being brought on account of his having a dog at large did not affect the matter of compensation. Under the circumstances, and taking into consideration that defendant was absent at the time, he would I only fine, him in ss. and costs, but at the same time advised him to sec the parent* of the girl and come to some amicable arrangements as to compensating them for the expense incurred in defraying doctor's fees, etc. BHEACH OP THE LICENSING ACT. !- Johtt Wilson was charged with having neglected to keep a light burning over the door of his licensed house, known as the Saracen's Head Hotel, from sunset on the 21*t to jsunris* on the 22nd August. Defendant pleaded guilty, but iv extenuation, said the lamp had got loose, and had been blown out. Fined nominally in la and costs, the breach being of infrequent occurrence. ALLOWING.COWS TO WANDEB. Hugh V r Mackie was charged with having allowed two cows to wander at large in Grey-street, Shortland, on. the 21st instant. - — - ~ - - This was another case in whic'n, the animals had been impounded. The defendant's son appeared with the necessary consideration to pay the fine, namely ss. and costs. The Court adjourned. -