SHOOTING A DOG.

Clutha Leader, Volume XLVII, Issue 9, 30 July 1920, Page 2

SHOOTING A DOG.

ACTION JUSTIFIED. At the Magistrate's Court on Tuts, day, before Mr 15. D. Mosley, S.M., Janet S. 'Dent elaimed' from Garnet fi! Grant the sum of £lO, Value of a dog! Th<? parties were residents of Puerua, Mr R. Grigor appeared' for plaintiff and Mr 'R. B. Stewart for defendant.

On' the application of plaintiff's solicitor all witnesses were ordered out of court.

In 'his opening address Mr Grigor pointed out that under section 24 of the Dog Registration Act a person must be in danger before 'lie has authority to shoot a dog.

.In net S. Dent., 'Puerua, said sh« owned the do jr. On •'Easter Tuesday •yhe saw defendant in a cart. She went into her house and heard a shot, ami then she ran out and saw her dog lying in 'a paddock. The dog lived two days, and she had to -get it shot. She used the dog to get. in Mie/.ows, and' would not 'have taken £lO for it. It was worth 'more to her. 'The dog was seven years old, and s'lie trained it herself, The dog was not in the habit of rushyig out at people on the road, and she had never received' a complaint about it.

George Dent, /brother of plaintiff, said the dog was Worth more than £lO. It was a 'handy doja about the place, 'lie accused defendant of shooting the dog, and defeudant said it had Ijitteu liiim. Defendant did not deny shooting it. He 'had seen t'he dog on the road, 'but- not rushing out at people—only barking.

•J'aimes Mutton, famner, Puerua, also gave evidence.

Mr Stewart opened his case and contended flint under sections 24 and 2.1 defendant was entitled to shoot the dog.

Garnet B. Grant, defendant, said the day lie shot the dog it- rushed at his horses. It did that every time he passed that road. Ilis horse swerved 'across the roa<l, and lie picked' up a rifle lie 'had in the cart and shot the dog, and' it rail away. Plaintiff could see the dog running out to the road. The dog 'usually rushed out at his horses, an-d once the dog bit one of them. He never wanted' the plaintiff about her dog. The previous day the dog rushed at his dog. He sat on the reins when he sh'ot the dog. He knew •his father offered 1 to pay for the dog, 'but it was against "his will.

Peter S. 'Grant, father of defendant, well knew the dog. He had often seen plaintiff watching the dog running out at people. He had carried stones and thrown them at the dog. On Easter ■Monday he was driving along past plaintiff's and the dog rushed out and bowled 'over 'his retriever dog, and ran under 'his cart. His son then said he would shoot plaintiff's dog. It was purely to prevent any ill-feeling that lie offered to pay for t'he dog, but he would not pay £lO for it. He would not shoot t'he dog, but lie would be glad to see someone else do it.

Archibald Morton, Puerua, knew the d'og. For about six years lie drove a cart in the district, and to people who did not know it the dog was dangerous. On one occasion' the dog turned 'his leader, and' once bit bis 'horse, as there was blood on it. It was a regular attender at the road when he passed. Plaintiff had no control over the dog. He told 1 plaintiff several times t'hat her dog -was dangerous. He would never think of trotting his 'horse past plaintiff's bouse, as the dog always rushed out if the horse was put out of a walk.

William Beat tie, farmer, P»uerua, said the dog did not often mis him when ho passed 'along, and' riwhed out at his horse.

William Lamond, Puerua, also gave evidence.

.Min L. Christie, farmer, I'uenia, [ also gave evidence of Hio dog rushiiiu | at- 'his horse, Tiro fl-o<r was a "jollv # j nuisance," and everyone who passed along that road was glad to rid of I it. It. nearly capsized his horse and a ffiß i» which his wife -was driving. Mr Grrijior the e'ourt had to lie satisfied that -defendant was in actual danger at the time lie shot the dog. Grant could l only shoot the dog when it was actually attacking him or hi» horse. The .magistrate said lie did not altogether credit plaintiff's evid'eiiee. 110 thought she must have seen her dog rushing out at people passing along the road. It rushed at defendant's horse ami endangered his safety, and he was justified in destroying it. lie gave judgment for defendant, with court costa Bk, solicitor's fee £1 ]», and witness' expenses £:i 19s .'kl.