REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DOG NUISANCE ORDINANCE.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume V, Issue 406, 23 June 1849, Page 4

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DOG NUISANCE ORDINANCE.

In directing their' attention, according to the instructions of this Council, to the question of the means hest calculated to ahate the nuisance arising from the excessive number of dogs within this Province, your committee took into their consideration, in the first place, the law on the subject as it at present stands. The " Dog Nuisance Ordinance," Ses. 3; No. 19, has been found ineffectual, ami in several respects inoperative. In the first place, its operation is confined to towns and their immediate vicinity, although the nuisance is most strongly felt and complained of in country districts, where considerable injury is someiimes done by dogs worrying sheep and caitle. In the second place, the mode of proceeding by the Ordinance is this — that dogs found at large are to be seized by the constables, who, provided the dog be claimed within a certain time, are to given up to the owner upon the payment of a fee "of five shillings, or two shillings and sixpence if the dog should have a collar with the " name of the owner legibly engraved thereon." The efftct of this enactment has been found to be that constables seized ham less and inoffensive dogs, which they knew to be owned, and thus made the law a means of extorting money by | way of ranson, while large, ferocious, and unrlaimtd do^s which it was dangerous to seize, 1 ut by which, in Let, the greatest amount ot damage was done, were suffered to go at large. From these considerations principally, but also from others, which your committee deem it unnecessary now to enter upon, they recommend that the Dog Nuisance Ordinance now in force should be repealed. The next question to which your committee directed their attention was the expediency, or otherwise, of levying fines or taxes upon dogs owned by aboriginal natives. They have borne in mind, on the one hand, that the Maories are generally attended by considerable numbers of dogs, and that injury to sheep and cattle is occasionally the consequence, as well as nuisance in oth«r ways, and* that, therefore, it would be highly desirable that some means should be devised to discourage them from keeping so many. On the oilier hand, they have feit that the natives have always been in the habit of keeping a considerable number of dogs, and that these are ii) some measure necessary to th^m to enable them to catch their pigs, and for other purposes. They fear it might be difficult to make the natives understand the true inten- j tion of a tax upon dogs, and that its impo>i- ■ tion might appear to them, however er'rone- I ously, as somewhat oppressive and exacting, and that it might even be almost impossible for some of the lower class of natives to pay it. Taking these different circumstances iiM-o consideration, your committee ha^e come to the conclusion that it will be better for the present to exempt na ive dogs from taxation, making provision, however, at the same time, that in case of damage done by any dog, whether owned by a native or not, the remedy shall be much easier and simpler than the law has hitherto provided. It seems unnecessary in this report to enter in detail into the reasons which have guided your committee in agreeing to the resolutions. They may briefly slate that the principl t Y/hich they recommend is, that of a tax upon dogs. They believe that wherever a dog is really useful, ihe owner will willingly pay for him the sum require*!, while, at the same time, they consider that ii will <lis; outage persons from having in tlieir following a number o' such animals for which they have no occasion. The only other point-upon which they will'

comment is the 7th resolution. As the law stands at- present, where sheep are worried by a dog, it is necessary that the plaintiff, before recovering damages, should be able to prove that the owner of the dog knew that it had worried sheep previously. It is evident, that even where such has been the case, it will often be extremely difficult for the plaintiff to bring satisfactory evidence, and the consequence is that an individual not unfrrqnently sustains serious injury, for which the law providos no rem dy. This evil the 7«h resolution is intended to meer, at the same time that it guards against the hardship which might he s iffered by a person being mulcted in heavy damages, in consequence of serious injury done by a dog which the owner had no reasou to suspect of any vicious proppnMty. We are aware that the method we suggest is opposed to the law of England as it at present stands, but we suggest that it is precisely one of those cases in which the peculiar circumstances of the colony warrant such a departure. D. Monro, Chairman.