WOMAN'S LEG IN COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 20 September 1927, Page 4

WOMAN'S LEG IN COURT

SEVERELY BITTEN BY DOG\

HAMILTON, Sept. 15

A woman’s leg was the chief exhibit in an action heard before Mr Justice Herdman., to-day. Its daintiness was disfigured by an indentation in the calf, where the teeth of a dog had fastened themselves. The disfigurment could be discerned beneath the woman s slioit check skirt and through her grey silk stockings.

Other exhibits in the case were photographs of the heads of two dogs, each with the jaw open and his Honour was set the task of deciding which of the dogs (now both dead) had inflicted the injury to the woman. It seems that one day last April Clive Matthews, farmer, of Hamilton, paid a business visit to the house of Emily Hangman Eveleigh, widow, of Otorohanga. Ho had with him a. cattle dog and Mrs Eveleigh also owned a dog of similar breed, and it wa* not long before the two quarrelled m the customary manner, first snarling and then fiercely attacking each other. At some time during the battle or just before it Mrs Eveleigh was bitten by one of the animals in the calf of her right leg. A gaping wound was caused and the muscle fibres were left piotruding. As the result the woman suffered much shock and was m pam for three weeks and had to undergo on operation. . Mrs Eveleigh contended that it wn» Matthews’ dog that hit her, and she claimed £314. ~,n CASE FOR THE DEFENCE-

The defence was that the injuries were caused in he course of a fight between plaintiff’s and defeudan s dogs and that plaintiff was bitten by her own dog. Mr A B R, Alossman, wlio appeared lor the plaintiff, said she was not bitten during the fight hut before it. Her dog was quite fnendly and af feetionato and she had owned it for some years. When came on the scene she moaned, Oh AR Mat thews, your brute of n dog has bitten mc » Matthews replied, Alv dog could not bite you as it had no tcetn. ’ Counsel then sulnnitted a photograph of the head of Matthews dog with the jaws apart, snowing a full mouth of savage-looking teeth. The wound in the leg, said counsel, hud permanently disfigured the symmetry of the limb, and in these days 0 f silk stockings and short skirts a disfigurement of this kind was a seiious thing to a lady. The case is proceeding.

PIECE OUT OF LADY’S LEU. JUDGMENT FOR- DEPENDANT. UAMIJ/rON. sept. 15. The case in which Emily Langman Eveleigh. widow, Otorohanga, sued dive Matthews. Farmer, Hamilton, for £‘3l4 damages for injuries received allegedly as a- result of defendant’s dog biting her. was continued before Mr Justice Herdman at the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday. For the defence, Eric Sydney Dawson.' stock agent, who witnessed the occurrence, said plaintiff's and defendant’s dogs commenced to tight, and in their com hat they collided against Mrs Eveleigh. who fell. As she was falling, witness saw her own dog grab her leg* His .Timor: Yon are quite certain aliout that ?—Positive. His. Honor: There can he no mistake about it?—None whatever.

* Clive Matthews, defendant, said he was (nearby when the dog hit Airs Eveleigh. Ho could not say which dog actually inflicted the injury, as the clogs v.-ere fighting, lmt he doubted very much that his dog could have inflicted such an injury, as its teeth were filed down. Ilis Honor'said it was impossible for him to decide on the evidence that plaintiff had proved her c-a.se. Mr Mossman, asked, in the circumstances. for a nonsuit. His Honor said lie tin light that litigation over the matter should cease, and gave judgment for defendant with costs. REPARTEE Eli Oil WITNESS BOX. During file cross-examination of a ' witness in 'the dog-biting case. Air A. )t. R. Alossnmii lOlorchanga), counsel lor plaintiff, commenced to question witness about his past career. .Judge Herdman: What has that to do with the case? Air Mossman said he sought to show that witness had once been a tram conductor in Auckland, and was dismissed for assaulting an inspector and throwing his book of tickets at him. His Honor: Good heavens. What has that to do with the dog fight? Did lie bite the inspector? (Laughter). Air Mossman (in witness): Were you not once convicted at Onehunga ? j His Honor: Look here Air Mossman. If you are going to pursue that line of cross-examination I will stop you altogether. You are merely seeking to blacken the man’s character in order to discredit him. That kind of cross-examination will load you nowhere. If you had a little more experience you would know that. Afr Mpssinan said he merely sought to test, the man’s credibility. Witness said he was convicted on one occasion at Onehunga lor using

an obaaeiio word, and that He was very poorly defended. “As a matter of fact you are the man who defended me Air Mossman,” he added amidst laughter. Mr Mossman: No, I only took your instructions. Witness: You iook them very badly

then. His Honor said he would allow tins line of cross-examination to proceed no further.