INVERCARGILL CATHOLIC LITERARY SOCIETY.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XI, Issue 16, 10 August 1883, Page 21

INVERCARGILL CATHOLIC LITERARY SOCIETY.

Invercargill, Aug. 20, 1883. At the usual weekly meetiug held oa Wednesday, Ist August, after the usual business of the evening was gone through, the programme for the evening was introduced, and consisted of a civil action in the Resident Magistrate's Court, the nature of the indictment being Crowley v. Tonner. This was a claim for damages sustained Joy Mr. Orowley through Mr. Tonner's dog savagely biting him on the Ist day of May last at Invercargill. In order to make this successful and interesting to all concerned, it was deemed advisable to select gentlemen to take the various parts. The following then took the parts as follows : Mr. Crowley plaintiff, Mr. Tonner defendant, Mr. Reid solicitor for plaintiff, Mr . Lawlor solicitor forthe defendant ; wit-, essesfor the plaintiff, Messrs. Powell and M'lntyre j for the defendant Messrs. Dwyer and Mulligan ; Mr, Bradley clerk of the 'court ; Mr. Weavers doctor. The president then took the position of magistrate and ordered the clerk of the court to call on the case set down for hearing. The fiwt called was Mr. Orowley, plaintiff, who deposed that on the day in question he had occasion to be in Bttrick street, Invercargill, and near the dwelling of Mr. Tonner, ; defendant, he was attacked by his (the defendant's) dog, and in spite of all resistance was savagely and maliciously bitten and wounded, and further the dog did tear certain clothing belonging to the plaintiff. Mr. Powell was the next witness who also gave similar evidence to that of the plaintiff, Mr. Mclntyre's evidence being also similar to that previously given. Mr. Beid for plaintiff then called Dr. Weavers, who deposed to being called upon to attend Mr. Crowley on the first of May last, whom he then found to be suffering from a bite and wound caused by a dog ; dressed the wound and prescribed for him. To Mr. Lawlor : Could not this wound be inflicted otherwise than by a dog's bite ? It might be inflicted by a nail or some other weapon. Yes, wounds are often caused by a dog. You are sure the wound in question was inflicted by a dog 1 Yes. You are a very clever doctor then. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Tonner, defendant, wag then called, who deposed to being from home on the first of May last. The dog was very quiet and had never been accused of biting any person before. His neighbours had dogs of a similar description which could scarcely be distinguished from his. Messrs. Dwyer and 1 Mulligan's evidence was similar to that of the defendant, as to the quietness of the dog, and the descriptions of the dogs in the neighbourhood being like to that of defendant. This was the casa for the defence. Mr. Reid would then draw his worship's special attion to the leniency of the law to the owners of vicious dogs. What a disgraceful state of affairs, your worship, that in a public thoroughfare, and in the town of Invercargill, citizens could not be safe from being maliciously bitten and wounded by such brutes. I would ask your worship to impose the heaviest penalty under the act in thii case. Mr. Lawlor would not detain the court by going into details in this matter as there was no evidence to prove the ownership of the dog, and, moreover, when sufficient evidence has been produced by the defendant, Tonner, that dogs of a similar description were to be found in the neighbourhood and the plaintiff's evidence has been more or less in agreement with that of the witnesses and no evidence has been produced as to the real ownership of the dog, I agree, your worship, that the plaintive was bit by soms dog or other the ownership of which dog or dogs he has failed to prove, and under the circumstances of the case I would ask your worship to dismiss the case. His worship had no doubt the plaintiff had been bit by some dog or other but as sufficient evidence had not b< en produced by the medical gentleman to that efiect, but no evidence had been produced by the plaintiff or witnesses to prove thejownersbip of the dog, and then we have the evidence of the defendant to give strong proof that dogß of a similar description a to be found in the vicinity of the defendant's resi* deuce, nnder the circumstances of the case and the evidence produced, the court cannot rule otherwise than dismiss the case, each pajing their own costs.