A HOOP AND A DOG

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20013, 2 December 1927, Page 6

A HOOP AND A DOG

FEATURES IN COURT CASE ANIMAL ALLEGED TO BE DANGEROUS Actually it was owing to a small boy’s search for a hoop that Charles William Eden appeared! in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, charged with • being the owner of a dog dangerous to ! the public and not kept under proper i control. { To summarise the incident rcsponsi ible tor defendant’s appearance, a lad ! who had gone to defenrljant’s place to inquire about a missing hoop, had been, it was alleged, bitten by a dog in the garden of Eden. Robert S. AfcNicol, blacksmith, father of tho lad in qmstion, said that on November 4 his boy returned home { crying and showed witness the marks of a dog bite on an arm. The wound ( was bleeding and the boy’s coat was torn. In response to questions, AfcNicol said he had not been good frieui-ls with the defendant since a feud last year. “S-s-s-s-!” Colin AfcNicol stated that he went to Eden’s place for a hoop, which it was alleged, defendant had taken from him some time ago. He spoke to Mrs Eden and Eden quickly arrived on tho scene. “What do you want heref” was wit- I ness’s description of a question put to him by Eden. Witness replied that he wanted his hoop. Eden w’as alleged to have said): “Don’t come those yarns here or I will set the dog on you.” According to witness defendant then went “s-s-s-s” and the dog jumped at [ witness, biting his armConstable Willetts considered the dog dangerous. He saw it on one occasion | after the incident and the djog then was frantic. The Man in Blue Air L. Cohen (who appeared for defendant): Perhaps he knew you were a constable. Witness: What’s that, Mr Cohen? Air Cohen: I say, “Perhaps he knew you wore a constable.” Witness: Oh, perhaps. AEr J. S. Barton, S.AL: He’s a working dog, is he? Mr Cohen: He’s a cattle dog. Constable Willetts: I don’t think he is a working dog—he has got no work to do. Air Cohen submitted that there was no evidence of the dog being dangerous. Indeed, tho evidence was to the contrary —the constable went to the house and found the dog under control; ft was tiad up. Air Cohen contended that it was beyond all reason that th~e defendant would set a very large dog on to a child. Air Barton found that the evidence so far established an assault, but he could not make an order to have the dog destroyed. He pointed out, however, that a dog, once having bitten a person must not be allowed, in accordance with Section 23 of the law connected witti the case, to go without a muzzle. The case was dismissed.