RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 649, 27 March 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, 25th March. (Before H. M'Culloch Esq., R.M.) D. M'Donald appeared to answer an information charging him with a breach of the " Dog Ordinance, 1866." Defendant pleaded " Not Guilty." G-. 0. Budd, the complainant, stated that on the forenoon of the 20th inst., when passing down Dee-street, he saw a large dog belonging to the defendant, lying in front of the Union Bank, in the position he would call " couchant " across the pathway, The dog being in complainant's way, he patted it to make it move, when it flew at and bit him. Had been unable to work since. To the Bench — "I simply patted it to make it move aside, not wishing to kick or hurt it. I was bitten through the nail of the middle finger. Dr Deck attended me. Cross-examined by defendant — " I was sober. Immediately afterwards I came here for the summons, which I suppose His Worship would not have granted if I had been drunk." No witnesses were called on either side. The defendant made a statement to the effect that the dog was of a very gentle disposition — that it would not bite anyone if not interfered with — that he could call many witnesses as to its amiability of disposition — that he had seen children sitting on and playing with it, and finally that there was plenty of room for complainant to have passed the dog without patting it. Mr M'Culloch read Clause 10 of the Dog Ordinance under which the information was laid as follows :— " If any dog shall in any public place rush at or attack any person, horse, or bullock, whereby the life or limbs of any person shall be endangered, or any property shallbe injured, the owner of such dog shall forfeit a sum of not less than ten shillings nor more than five pounds over and above the damages which such dog may have occasioned, and such damages shall be recoverable in any court of competent jurisdiction ;" and, remarking on the evidence, said that it did not appear the complainant had teased or ill-used the animal, but only patted it as might have been done by any child or young person. The Ordinance did not require that evidence of previous viciousness of the dog should be adduced. He should inflict a fine of 10s, other damages, if sought, to be recovered by civil action.