WHICH WAS THE BRUTE ?

Globe, Volume III, Issue 265, 17 April 1875, Page 3

WHICH WAS THE BRUTE ?

A man named Daniel Shields has just been brought before a Glasgow Police Court on a charge of cruelty to a dog. From an account of the case in the Glasgow News it appeal’s that Shields, or Dan, the name by which the man referred to is better known, is a huge fellow of a miner, about six feet in height, of prodigious muscular proportions, about thirty years of age, and unmarried. He has a weakness for liquor, and while under its influence has a particular penchant for pitting his strength against all the dogs of the neighbourhood. Many sharp tussles he has had, for the mere love of the thing, and on one occasion, it is said, he accepted a wager to fight a big Newfoundland at Coatbridge, and won the bet. Late last Saturday night, Dan visited his father’s house in Whitelaw street, after all the family had retired to, rest. Finding some difficulty in obtaining admission he began kicking at the door at such a rate that he soon aroused the slumbering inmates. The terrier, which was rathei short in temper, got into a very excited state, and began furiously to gnaw the door. The daughter then jumped out of bed for the purpose of giving her brother admission, when the dog rushed into the lobby. Dan immediately seized the animal, and said he would screw out its legs, at the

same time treating it in such a manner that its howls roused the whole neighbourhood. One of the brothers, who was particularly fond of the dog, then went to its rescue and separated the two. Quietness was thus for a time restored, but the peace was not of long duration. Dan sat down by the lire, with the intention apparently of spending the night in that position, and after a short time the old man ordered his daughter to put out the light. In the meanwhile, Dan had been amusing himself by aggravating the dog, but had never actually laid hands on it. As the daughter put forward her hand to extinguish the lamp, Dan struck her over her arm, and the animal then sprang upon him. Then began the fight in earnest. The man hit the dog in the mouth with all his strength, making it roll over on the floor. The dog got up again at once, and set upon him, biting him on the hands and legs. Nothing daunted, Shields faced the infuriated animal, and again struck it on the chest. The whole house by this time was in great consternation. All the members of the family leaped from their beds, and while one portion endeavoured to secure the dog, the others were as busily engaged in preventing Dan from renewing the combat. An examination of Shields’ injuries followed, when they were found to be less serious than might have been expected. In fact, so trivial did they appear, that Dan determined to give them no attention whatever. In the morning, however, the pain was so great that he was driven to consult the doctor. He called upon Dr Hay, who supplied a remedy, and gave him such instructions that, if he attended to them, his wounds were not likely to prove very serious. This was too much trouble for Dan, and his hand swelling, and the pain increasing, he lodged an information with Captain Anderson, the chief of police in Maryhill. His principal desire was to have the animal shot, believing in the popular fallacy that if this course was adopted it would be impossible for hydrophobia to set it. The appearance of the man’s hand caused Capt Anderson to institute thorough incpiiry into the case Of course he ascertained that the animal, though of a somewhat savage disposition, especially at the present time, was in no way to blame. If Dan had not aggravated it there was not the slightest doubt that it would not have interfered with him. Instead of taking any proceedings against the dog, he had Shields apprehended and brought before the police court on Monday morning, when he was sentenced to twenty days’ imprisonment.