UNFRIENDLY DOGS

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 151, 23 December 1929, Page 13

UNFRIENDLY DOGS

CLAIM FOR LOSS FAILS

"If the injuries a dog does are the result of provocation or are done- in self defence, or if they are done- in a fight voluntarily entered on -by two dogs, I do not think that damages can be recovered for such injuries," was the conclusion >Ir. E. Page, S.M., reached in the-case, in which Mrs. Jean Turner Cottier claimed £14 1-ls damages from Alexander Grey for the death of her Australian terrier dog, said 'to have been brought about by an attack made upon it by the defendant's collie dog. The case was heard in tho' Magistrate's Court on Friday, and the Magistrate gave his decision this morning, dismissing the claim. ..

In his judgment. Mr. Page said that the plaintiff's dog was considerably the smaller, but probably not the less aggressive of the two. Each seemed to have been equally a party to the commencing of the disturbances thatoccurred in February, and it had been shown that after the defendant had got his. dog clear from the initial tussle the plaintiff' dog renewed the .attack and they had to be separated again. There was a body of evidence that the defendant's dog was of a quiet and docile disposition, and that it was constantly played with by children and that it was not given to light with, or to take much notice of other dogs.

"There seems to be little doubt, however," continued the Magistrate, "that these two dogs, were unfriendly towards one another. They would occasionally wrangle together one on either side of a fence, and whenever the larger one appeared in tho vicinity of the home where the smaller one lived the latter from his stronghold inside the fence or up on the balcony would keep up a constant yapping until the other disappeared from view."

After discussing section. 27 of the Dog Begistratiou Act, Mr. Page said that prior to the passing of the New Zealand legislation, damages could not be recovered for injuries done by a dog unless it could be proved that the owner knew that the dog was mischievous and likely, to do injury. It was from this condition of the law that the saying arose that "Every dog is entitled to one free "bite." He thought that the- true intent and purpose of the section of the Act was to remove the necessity of such proof. The owner was to be liable notwithstanding that he might not have known of the mischievous propensity of his dog. He did not think, however, that it removed the ordinary common law defences to such a claim.

Mr. H. 11. Cornish, who appeared for the defendant, said that Mr. Gray did not ask for costs.