ATTACK BY DOG

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 187, 25 August 1937, Page 6

ATTACK BY DOG

Woman Receives "Benefit of the Doubt" NOT THE SAME ANIMAL -i # "It is very suspicious that she is the owner of the dog, but, on the evidence heard, there is some doubt and she is entitled to the benefit of tbat doubt, but 1 may add again that tbero is a verv grave suspicion." said Mr J. Miller, S.M., at the Hastings Magistrate's Court this morning, in dismissing the information against Bertha Ivy Downey, who was charged with being the owner of a dog which attacked a boy in Gray's road. Senior-Sergeant G. Sivyer conducted tbe prosecution and Mr W. S. Averill represented the defendant, wbo pleaded not guilty. Peter Terrence £rayland_ aged 12 years, said tbat about 8.30 a.m. on Juiy 19 last, he was walking along Gray's road when a dog jumped over the fence and bit him on tlie arm. Ho denied tbat he had teased the dog. He did not know at the time whose dog it was. After the dog had bitten him three ladies came out of a kouse and a drover also came over to him. Later he accompanied a constable to the locality and called upon Mrs Downey. There was then some wire-netting over the gate but on the day of the incident there was none. The dog that bit him was a big black and wbite greybound. Mrs Downey said tbat her dog had never bitten anyone before and said tbat other dogs bad been prowling about. Mr Averill : Wasn't tbe mark caused by a scratch and not really a bite? Witness: No. It was a bite. To further questioning he said that Mrs Downey offered to batho the wound but witness was in a hurry to go to school. Saw Oog Leap Cate. Thomas Roberts, a drover, said ho saw .the dog leap over tbe gate and grab the "boy by tbe arm. Witness was about two cliains away. The dog grabbed the boy while in mid-air. The boy did not give any indication that he had so mucli as seen the dog before it made its jump. After making a further futile jump at the boy, it then leapt back over the fence. Three women came out of the house a little later. To Mr Averill witness said that the injury was a tooth mark. The flesh was not broken. Mr "Miller: Did the dog jump the gate to grab the boy, or was it just jumping over, and the boy happened to be "there? t Witness: Well, all I know is that the dog grabbed the boy while in midair. Evidence of having visited the house of the defendant was given by Constable It. Sutherland. He said that the dog then appeared quite friendly. Eor the defence Mr Averill- said that the evidence of the defendant would be that she was actually treating lier dog at tbe time of the incident and tbat tbe injiiry to the boy could not have been* infhctecl by her dog. It was admittcd tbat, after the incident, wire netting had been put on the gate, but tbis was merely to kcep other dogs out. Giviug evidence, the defendaut said that when the hoy cried out she, was giving the dog a dose of sulphur, as he -vvas not too well. On hearing the cry she ran out to the gate. She saw no other dogs about at the time. She contended that when the hoy was asked to identify the dog he appeared doubtful and said: "If you haven't another dog then this must be the one." Constable Informed, Mr. Miller: Why did you not tell the constable that you were attending to your own dog? Witness: I did say something about it and when he asked me whose dog it was, I said that I would not liko to say whose dog it might have been. To the senior-sergeant, witness said she knew of several dogs very much like her own that were sometimes at her place; . Margaret Downey, a daughter of the defendant, said that the dog in question followed witness' mother out to the gate when she went to see the boy. Witness saw no other dog about. To the senior-sergeant witness said that a man across the street called out tliat "the dog jumpcd six feet over the fence." Moutague Plank, dairy-i'armer, said that the dog in questioii was oue of Ihe uiost docile dogs he had encountered ou his rouuds. He had seen a number of grcyhounds round that neighbourhood at times. Mr. Miller said that there was no questioii that the boy was attacked by a dog, but whether*>the dog did so 'vieiously was a different matter. It was possible that cvcn a docile dog, jumping a gate and unexpectedly coming up against a boy, might grab at him, but not intentionally, and under such circumstances there would not be a conviction. There were suspiciona, however, that the dog was that of the defendant, but as thero was a doubt, the information would be dismissed. ■ 1 — ' ■ * —