DEATH OF A DOG.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17997, 16 April 1930, Page 6

DEATH OF A DOG.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. NEGLECT ALLEGED. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. The death of a pedigree Pomeranian dog was the subject of a claim for its value, £25, brought by Mrs Annie Margaret Wheeler, wife .of James Wheeler, of Frankton, in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M. Defendants were Victor William Priest, veterinarian, and his wife, Elizabeth, in whose care the animal was left, while plaintiff went for a holiday. Case for Defendants. Mr Tompkins, in opening the case for defendants said that while his clients very much regretted that this dog had been killed while in their care they could take no responsibility for its loss. The dog had been placed in their charge, but there was no question of payment except that some suggestion of a present to Miss Priest was made. Every care had been exercised. It was freely admitted that Mrs Priest had been told that the dog was not to be taken off its chain. The dog had been put in the washhouse during the night and chained up during the day. It had fretted and would eat nothing, and it was decided, after several days, to take it off the chain and let it run around. A piece of cord was left attached to the collar of the dog so that it could be caught easily. It had been playing with two other puppies in the drive and was defending a plate of milk from them when it had been run over by the motor van. The drive was not a roomy one and had the dog been tied up the driver of the vau could not help hut notice it. Victor William Priest said it was not his practice to keep dogs other than for veterinary attention. The dog had fretted at being away from heme and would cat practically nothing. It was only then that it was decided to let it run with the other dogs. Elizabeth Priest said that when Mrs Wheeler brought the dog she (witness) had told her that she could assume no responsibility. There was no question, of payment. Witness described how the dog had been tied up and how it had fretted as a result. Bessie Glover remembered Mrs Wheeler bringing the dog to her mother’s place. Asked if there would be any fee she toid Mrs Wheeler that she thought there might be the small charge of 7s 6d a week. She computed this from the charge made for looking after dogs requiring veterinary attention. When the dog had been killed the gardener had not left the garden and the dog had been carried up to the yard by tier sister and not by the gardener. Charlotte Glover, corroborated the evidence of her sister, the previous witness.

The Driver's Evidence.

Evidence was given by the driver of the motor van, who toid His Worship that the drive was not a wide one and that he had not noticed a dog tied up. He saw three dogs playing aiound in the yard, however. D. D. Wilson, veterinary surgeon, knew the dog concerned in the case and would make a liberal estimate „of its value at five guineas. A dog that had reached mature age, that had never been shown, and that had never been put to the stud would have little commercial value in his opinion. Good Pomeranian pups could be bought for five guineas. It frequently occurred that a dog would fret and refuse to eat as this dog had done and by letting it off the chain it would considerably help matters. In answer to llis Worship witness said that if he had found a dog in the condition of the dog in this case he would have physicked him. “ That is what 1 think Mr Priest should have done,” rejoined His Worship. Priest, recalled, explained that he had treated the dog with medicine when lie noticed its condition, hut without result. Judgment for Ten Guineas. - In giving judgment for plaintiff for ten guineas, with costs £5 15s, llis Worship considered that there was a conilict of evidence on the defendants’ side. Parts of Mrs Priest’s evidence tested tiis credulity to too great an extent. The dog had been placed in defendants’ care under certain terms and these apparently had not been adhered to. The dog had been left to wander around and had been killed by a motor van. As tar as computing the value of the dog, he would have to take into consideration that the sentimental value of the animat had prompted a proportion of the value claimed and this he could not take into account.