WAS HE A VET?

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 569, 28 June 1933, Page 5

WAS HE A VET?

(Press Assn.—

• TAILWAGGERS' CLUB SUED FOR LOSS OF A DOG LACK OF SKILL ALLEGED

-By Telegraph — Copyright).

Wellington, Tuesday. Alleging that as a result of negligence and unskilful treatment on the part of the defendant, an Alsatian dog had to he destroyed, E. R. Leighton claimed th'e suiri of £25 in the Magistrate's Court to-day from the Tailwaggers' Club of N.Z. (Incorp.), and T. C. Webb of Wellington. The statement of claim set out that last October jnlaintiff had consulted tha defendant club regarding the injuries received by his Alsation dog and the club uridertook to furnish the services of its veterinary surgeon. Defendant Webb had then called upon plaintiff, representing himself as the veterinary surgeon 'sent hy th'e club to attend the dog. It was alleged that 'Webb had been so unskilful in his treatment of the dog that it had to be destroyed. Mr.'G. G. Watson, counsel for plaintiff, said that evidence . would be brought to show that Webb had no veterinary qualifications whatever. On his card, he used after his name the leters "L.I.O.S.," a degree which he had apparently conferred upon himself and which was said to mean "Late Inspector of Stock." Evidence would be called to show that when plaintiff 's wife Called upon the club, the words "our vet." had been used. When Webb h'ad arrived to attend the dog; he had tendered his card bearing the mystic sym-bols and had said' that he had come from the club. Webb had taken the dog away for treatment and had said th'at it had a br oken stifle. Eventually, he said, a veterinary surgeon had had to be called iri and he had ordered the dog: to he- destroyed; It was tevealed by a post mortem, that the bone had not heen broken t but that the thigh' had beeri dislocated. 4 . Fred. Crossley, veterinary surgeOn, said that piairitiff had brought the dog in question to him and he had found that it was -suffering fro-m a "dislocated hip. The dog was in poor condition and wouid be in pain ivhe-n it was destroyed. There was a visible wasting of the leg and a skilled practitioner could not have been mistaken , as to the nature of the injury. Witness produced the bone from the dead animal which showed no injury to the stifle. He had previously drawn the attention of the cluh'-s president to the fa'ct th'at they were employing an unqUalified veterinary surgeon.. The ^ Hear ing was adjourned until Wednesday week.