PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY & SATURDAY. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 972, 24 August 1881, Page 3

PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY & SATURDAY. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1881.

A very important decision uttered from the Magisterial Bench was given yesterday, in the matter of a case, the Police v. C. W. Buller. The facts have been already published in this journal, but may be briefly summarised. A dog, admittedly a dangerous one, in the custody of Mr. Buller, severely bit Mr. John Dick in the arm. Mr. Buller denied owning the dog, and said it was the property of Mr. Haig. Mr. BrassEY, who appeared for the Police, quoted the inderpretation of the Dog Registration Act, which is as follows : — “ Owner of a dog ’’ means the occupier of any house or premises where any dog is ordinarily kept or permitted to live or remain, and includes the keeper of a dog, or the person in whose care such dog may temporarily be, whether loose or confined, or who may harbour any dog. The evidence was perfectly clear, and Mr. Price gave a most lucid summing up. He said that it was admitted the dog had been in Mr. Buller’s care, and that by the Act he was responsible. The 16th section he said was most positive, it was as under: — If any dog shall, on any highway or any unenclosed place, rush at, attack, or startle any person or any horse, cattle, or other animal, whereby the life or limbs of any person shall be endangered, or any property be injured or endangered, such dog shall be liable to be immediately killed ; and the owner or keeper of every such dog shall, on conviction, * forfeit and pay a penalty or sum of not more than five pounds for every such offence, over and above the amount of any damage which •ueh dog may have occasioned.

Under this clause it does not matter one whit whether a dog bit a person or otherwise, the mere proof that it startled any passer by was quite sufficient if life or limb was endangered. The Act although very stringent is an Excellent one, and even in our small community has impelled the destruction of a number of noisy, nocturnal, howling curs, which were neither of use nor ornament. The offending canine, in this instance, is, we believe, a splendid pig-dog, but the owner of it, by perusing the clause just quoted, will see that his pet when indulging in playfulness such as gripping Mr. Dick’s arm is liable not only to immediate destruction, but furthermore, may, possibly, cause its owner to be cast in damages. The danger a pack of yelping curs may occasion is enormous, and it was only the other day a lady received a severe fall through a miserable mongrel having rushed at the horse she was riding. The fine inflicted in the present case we do not think severe ; but we.thrust that it will cause the owners of savage dogs to either chain them up or muzzle them. Had the dog in question attacked a little boy, and no help at hand, the result might have been serious, and it is probable that a charge of manslaughter would have been laid against the owner of the vicious brute. Cave canem.