POLICE COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume XII, Issue 1002, 23 November 1878, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

Hamilton, Nov. 20,1878. (Before W. H. Northcrorv, Esq., 8.M.) A FEROCIOUS DOG. Bernard Charlesßeale wascharged with keeping a ferocious clog at large in Grey-street, East Plamilton. Defendant pleaded not guilty, Mr W. M. Hay appeared for informant, and stated that the case was brought on public grounds, the dog being notorious for its ferocious attacks on people and cattle, and that as defendant holds the public offices of Vaccinator and Registrar persons and especially women and children have necessarily to visit his premises. Mary Cox, sworn, said : I am the wife of Frederick Cox living at East Hamilton. On the 4th day of the present month I had occasion to go to Br Beale's to got my baby vaccinated ; my son was with me. As I was leaving, I heard the little boy cry. I asked him what was the matter and he said "doggy" v nd pointed to Dr Beale's house underneath which the dog had retreated. I took the boy inside ; I found three black marks on the child's arm. Dr Bealo said it would not signify, and pat something on his arm. Afterwards the wound suppurated and I applied something else to it. The bite affected the health of the child. Cross examined : There were three small marks; there was no blood. There was the mark of the teeth. The suppuration came from th 3 place bitten. Three other persoos saw the injuries. I did not see the dog. To the Court: I have not known the dog to bite people or children before. The defendant asked that the childs arm might be examined by the Court. The Court ruled that it would be useless to do so at this date.

W. G-. Harp, sworn, stated : on the 4th inst I was at defendants. I saw a black and tan dog" with some white about it near the surgery. I saw a little child playing- by the house and the dog lying on the footpath. The child picked up a hammer lyinrr by, and I directly afterwards heard a scream. I went towards the child and met it crying out something about a dog. I took hold [Continued on Fourth-Page.] »Mu«aiinjnu«iii»iun ■im..i«aiMii'iimiju»i .uuwft..->jw»...«i

of the child ahtV.tHe'dog^rixn'under the* house. ; 1 v sa§ So':§o£ attack . the, child,., The child. produced is, tlie'' one * in' question. u The' dog j bit him on .his. right arni, , ) ..,,. -i . GroSs examined: The dog did .not . offer to Hte me. If he had I'd have ;Med\;him. The dog have attacked me on previous occasions; I don't recollect it. I saw, the dog attack and bite the. child. Re-examined : I have seen the dog., 'previously Jon* defendant's pre mises. Walter J. Potler, 11 years old, was placed in the box. JQie Court, :„Po-.ymukno.vv what an oath is ? ]. t Boy : Yea. Court: What is it? ' ,Boy : Tell the truth.,,.. r;M , . : ,:■ ' " : Cdurt: If yon don't, what'then.? BovrCo t0.11e11.,, f ~~ l ' The Court then ord^red'tho: boy to. be examined : I know the dog; it belougs { ; Ijo ,D r Beale. The doer always chases me as I ride by. He bit my horse on the leg once, arid the horse kicked and ran away with, me. I saw the bite on the hordes' heel. Frederick Cox, a painter, sworn, said : On the evening of the 4th inst. when I went home 1 saw three bltjck murks on the child's right arm appa- :'■■". 'r°htly !; tft3 bile of a tiojg; : 'Nefct-day lam fyblack and ( tan dog following ctete^ndant'aWns...' It had no muzzle affixed to its mouth. It could have ti attacked 'or cattle, j To came to me ■'■' 'and'bogged mje'npt <tb prosecute as it,vould cost y.oxx'Mov JJS. I did not tell yo*u' iHyaaisorryT had taken any action in the matter. I did so because you did ne-t tie up the dog as you promised to do. I did not teTI

you but that for Lawyer Hay I would. frr withdraw; thecharge. ;!0<; !''<>..> ■ "'<■: Tp'iMr i/Lawyer Hay did not in any way m-ge me on with the case.' ~,r< You simply wheri'lconsultfed'-yo^.; • - showed me the'law of thecase: You; •■■- told me I could if I liked sdeclefebdi.' ant for damages, but you told me ■... you did not think it would be-rigjh'l .to,do SO,, c : ' ■'.' .•!'' \'- '., '.'"..'; defendant denied that the dog was a ferocious one. 16 was a domestic pet of a most amiable disposition, and the present was' vlie first occasion on which the character of the dog had been aspersed, , f _..., .The judgment of the Court was' that defendant be fined 20s and costs, Is 2d, and that the dog be either chained'up,or mupled. ? .-• "' ■ ; ' Mr Hay applied that half ijhe ine be paid to informant/ as he had been put to medical expense in healing the wound on the child's arm.; Application granted. , t ' . :•'.., '..':'.......C1V1L SIDE. B. & Beale v. W. Walker.— . Claim, £1 lis 6d. : - ;.;; : : ; V"' Mr' Whitaker. appeared for the defence, and drew r attention to the .... fact .that .the ;most important witness, Dx Waddihgtbn, was ill in bed. -.; '■■■ ' ■'-'-■' •;'.,-,;,.<.

Bernard' Charles 4 Beale, sworn, ~ said ..on February 26th, I was called to attend the wife of defendant, suffering from fever.',j advised and ."' 'perscribod for bei'. r , ; I pe^rspribed;for hbr again on March. 7th. ! The : amount claimed is for my services. To Mr Whitakw't One ot the women in Mr flfalleer's establish: n.ent called me in on February, to , ? ; ee,Mrs Walker, who was very bad. . , I saw Mr. Walker on that occasion. ■' I did not say anything to him or he--1o me. I dont recollect speaking to him. I perscribed quinine. I got the quinine.-froin Mr tHal'ly. I paid nothing for it." I base my claim for advice, not medicine, although I mentioned medicine in the account. I don't know whether Mrs Walkercame specially to see me in March. I saw her in Mr Sandes' shop,... • ■ -To the Court :, She consulted me when I met, her at' Sacdes', shop. I ' "charge half a guinea for single -consultations in Hamilton, and a guinea at Cambridge in consideration of the distance. Mr Walker, sworn, said I mot plaintiff in my house on Feb. 26. I had some conversation with him. He addressed me asking how I was, and followed up'by asking alter Mrs Walker's Health. I said she was very ill. Plaintiff said, you'd better let me see her. I said no, you can't, she is under the care of Dr Waddington, and -I am expecting' him .'ftp every ►moirient,' as I'have fwlefaphed' for him. He said, well,, if you wpn/t let me see ber professionallyjydu won't object to my seeing her as a friend. I said I had,no objection if she had not. ' 'walked, upstairs, and plaintiff | followed ;me to the parlor, -/where Mrs Walker was. I said to my wife;- here's Dr Beale come to see you. She. said Dr., I cannot, allow, you .to prescribe for me, as we expect Dr. /Waddingtqu every moment;. , He said, I have not coma perfcssionHlly' but as a'' ; friend. He said it's not itiedicsine; .you require, but a little totiic, -X am going doWn'the street a,nd> I'll get y6ri some : quinine/ lie got soinoin my namefi;om Mr Hally. She said its no ase, I.can't take it for I'm under Dr Waddington's charge. Dr Beaie never rendered me .'any/ account. I knew nothing of it till he served me with the summons. Some little time acfo I threatened to summons hi in for money he owes me, and he then said bethought he had a charge against ire. I confronted him at the time with Mrs Walker, and plaintiff then admitted he had no claim. I never employed Dr Beale but once before, some 18 months ago in Hamilton when he foi ctd hi 3 services upon me in a sirailaV way. >; I have given strict injunctions never to employ Dr Beale. Ihc Court gave judgment for the defendant with cosfoi, JC'2 on. I