A SAVAGE DOG.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3989, 23 July 1915, Page 7

A SAVAGE DOG.

-iEETS, HIS JUST DESSERTS,

COURT HOLDS KILLING NO MURDER.

A case of interest to owners of dogs was heard before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday . Martin Otten Neshaitsen (Mr Burhard) sought to recover £5 from Charles Hills (Mr Stock), for the value of a dog shot by tlie defendant on June 26 last. •j.Ue plaintiff produced the collar of uie [log, which lie valued at £5. It was a sheep dog, partly broken, in. On June 26, witness saw defendant snoot the dog. Air Stock: We admit the -shooting. His Worship: What made the defendant shoot the dog? Witness: He thought it was going to bite his boy. I heard a noise and looking round saw the dog a few yards from the boy. I whistled to the dog, and it at once came to me. Defendant said he was going to shoot the dog, but I told him not .to, as tlie dog had not bitten the- boy. I told defendant to pick up a stick, and bit tho dog on the head. Defendant later shot- the dog.

By Mr Stock: The dog. did not attack Air Hills and his two boys. Ho bad been told that the dog had previously torn tlie seat out of the pants of one of defendant’s boys. lie did not know that the dog had on one occasion attacked Mrs Hills. To Air Bernard : 'Flic dog was quiet and under good control. Charles Baker said that he was assisting the plaintiff to skin a beast on the dav in question, but did not see the dog rush and attack defendant or his hoys. Defendant came down to the beach later, and shot the dog. He did not see the dog attack any one. By Air Stock: Witness was busy skinning the beast, and did not pay lnTich attention- to what the dog was doing. August Zenker, farmer, of Aluriwai, said lie knew the dog belonging to plaintiff. Ho had never seen it attacking anyone. By Air (Stock: A dog which would tear the seat out of a boy’s pants could not be called a quiet dog, but the boys might have been teasing it. Air Stock said that the defence was that the dog was a vicious one, and had been a nuisance to defendant and his family. The dog had attacked defendant and his sons on the day in question, and defendanthad shot it.

Charles Hills, fisherman, of Alanutuke, the defendant, said that on June 26 lie and his two sons went down to the beach to visit- their nets. He saw plaintiff skinning a beast on the beach. There were several dog* around*, the beast. On their way home, while they were passing the beast which plaintiff was skinning witness hoard a commotion, and looking round saw plaintiff’s dog making a vicious attack on one of his sons. Ihe boys had sticks and were beating the dob off. 'Plaintiff picked up a stick, and went to beat off the dog. W itness had Iris gun with him, and said “-t will shoot that dog.” He thought lie would give plaintiff and the dog a chance, hut the dog still continued to snarl and <xro\vl, and witness shot it. By Air Burnard : At the time, witness shot the dog, it was attempting to cut him and his sons off as it would a mob of slieep. Its demeanor was that of savage ferocity. . Percy Hills, son oi detendant, <.esoribed the incidents which led up to the shooting of the dog. On wa'v down to the nets. Air Neshausen’s dog snapped at witness’ lather s gum boots. On their way back tin dog attacked witness’ brother, and the latter hit it with a stick Neshausen yelled out to witness brotliet to hit the dog. The dog was .snarling and showing its teeth, and as it was running around to head his tatiim off the latter shot the dog. “ Rv Air Burnard: Neither witness nor'his brother ever teased the dog. Independence Hills, son ol deiomjant corroborated his brothers evidence. The dog attacked witness, and was snarling and showing its teeth when his father shot it. Some time before as witness’ brother, Ho > - was rolling a. hoop on the beach the dog came and tore the seat nut ot h,s pants. Neither he nor Ins brotheis had ever teased the dog. Holly Hills, aged 11. also gave evi deuce/ He said the dog on one <><; easion had torn the seat out of his (witness” pants) while lie was trundling a hoop on the beach.. Rose Hills, wife of defendant-, said that- towards the end ol April plaintiff’s dog had flown at her, and gave her a great fright. . His Worship said it was quite deal that defendant was quite justified m shooting the dog, which was attacking defendant and his sons would ho for defendant with costs, solicitor’s foe £1 Is.