SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2763, 18 March 1910, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. i TII3 half-yearly .sittings of the Sup- ' remc Court were continued yesterday before His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper. ! Proceedings commenced with the hearing of the evidence for the defence in tile claim of Field v. Thompson, partly heard on Wednesday afternoon, a claim for £175 damages alleged to have been suffered by reason of an attack by defendant’s dog. Counsel for defence, in outlining tile case, said the defendant denied the allegations put forward by plaintiff, and said if plaintiff, Mabel Field, suffered injury it was caused by her own action. They had paid money into Court but they denied liability. The jury must have noticed that all the witnesses for the. plaintiff showed that only on the premises of the plaintiff was the dog of a vicious nature. The case could have been dealt with .summarily at the Magistrate’s Court, or could have been dealt with at the Police Court. It would bo shown by witnesses that noi where except at plaintiff’s house had the dog shown a vicious disposition. Helen Elizabeth Thompson, wife of the defendant, said that she did not know the plaintiff, Mrs.. Field, but knew two of the children. Her husband bad bad the dog in question about four years, from when it was a puppy. She' had never said to one of the plaintiff’s children, when they came to get the dog taken away, that Mrs. Field was a perfect nuisance, nor had she ever had a letter from the plaintiff regarding the dog. On lltli January, Rose Kcrwin came to her house at 11.30 p.in. to get the dog taken away. This was when tile dog was said to have bitten the boy. Her husband always took steps to take the dog away from Hie plaintiff’s when they sent word to have it taken away. She had never had a complaint that the dog was at other places than the Fields’. The only occasion on which witness had seen the older girl was when she came to see if slic could get a billet at the sliop, but nothing was then said about the- dog. Defendant kept a nursery, and a good number of people came about the place, but no complaint had been made. Witness did not uelieve that the dog would have bitten anyone, unless it had been irritated. By. Mr. Burnard: She had been requested by the children and Mrs. Smelley to have the dog removed from Mrs. Field’s place, as the latter and her children were terrified and frightened to go in and out of the house. Dir. C. H. Schumacher testified 1 to having made an examination of the child Mabel Field, on bchald of dofeird_ ant. From what he saw of the child in Court on the previous day he thought the wounds on the throat appeared to be improving. He considered the child to be of weak constitution but that an operation-would have greatly improved the state, of the wounds. After detailing the different ways in which scars might be treated and nossibly removed altogether, he said that he did not think there would be. any permanent injury to the child’s genera] health. Mary Jones was next called. She gave evidence of having seen Mrs. Field’s little boy and other boys bitting defendant’s dog with sticks. Shortly a Iter wards the little girl Mabel came out of ’lie house and patted the dog on the head. She never noticed whether the dog was a savage one or not. She bad no apprehension concerning her children with the dog. Alexander Thomson, the defendant, also gave evidence. He said lie had the dog lor four years, since it was a pup. The dog was quiet and harmless. About 11 p.m. on Januar<- 3rd he was told for the first time that his dog hud bitten the little girl Field. He never received any letter from Mrs. Field, but had heard on two occasions from the children, who requested him to go to their house and remove, the dog. On one occasion 'he Sent a boy (Fraser) for the dog, but he did not get it. At no time was he requested to take the dog away that lie. did not do so. He’ told Mrs. Field that they had no right to keep the dog about the premises, and that if they did so there would" Ik; trouble. In addition he also cautioned the children about keeping the dog about the premises. The day alter he was told that his dog had bitten the little girl be took it a wav am! destrovod it. By Mr. Burnard: Every time the children came to his house it was to ask him to- remove the dog. What Mrs Field had said in Court about having shown him the marks on her boy’s chest was totally untrue. His Honor hero interrupted, drawing attention to the absolutely contradictory nature of the evidence. Either one set of witnesses dr another wore not speaking the truth. It was not for him to express an opinion, but the question was one which the jury would have to decide. J. J. McLachlan, laborer, gave, evidence to the effect that the dog was quiet. He had never heard of it biting anybody. By Mr. Burnard: The dog was a fierce dog when on the chain, but playful when off the chain. Frank Airy stated that he had been in tlic habit of calling daily with bread at both defendant’s and plaintiff's houses. ITe had seen the Field children playing with- tile dog, leading it about by a string, and, on another oc_ casion the- little boy attempted to set the dog at him. Ho should say the dog. was a good-natured dog, and a good watchdog. By Mr. Burnard: He was no more afraid of defendant’s dog than others on the premises, Avliich always used to growl at him. Going in the gat© he used to arm himself against the dog by picking up stones, but the dog never attacked him. When at Mrs. Field’s house the dog required watching. Charles Alexander Fraser, carpenter, deposed to having, on several occasions, hunted the. dog away from his house. He had known the dog for three or four years, and never saw the slightest sign of viciousness , about it. He had known fill© Field’s children call the dog into their place from the start, and had also seen them feeding dogs at the back door. He had warned, the Field children not to encouirng© the dog and keep it about the premises. By Mr. Burnard: He warned the children because he thought the dog would bite them.

Charles E. Fraser, son of the previous witness, and who had been- in defendant’s employ for over two years, was next- called. The dog owned by defendant was a quiet dog and he had not known it to attack anyone. The Field children used to play with the dog and one of them, on one occasion told him that the dog belonged l to- them, and not to defendant. John Baty, milkman, deposed that the dog when loose was very ouiet, but "a bit rowdy” when on tile chain. John Fraser stated 1 that lie often drove the dog away from liis place. Tile dog was a- very “mild” dbg, and he did not think it would l bite.

By Mr. Burnard: He. drove the dog away because he did not want it about Jiis place. 'This concluded the evidence and both Counsel addressed the Court at length. His Honor, in reviewing the evidence, said that the legal aspect of the case was that- the owner of a dog was responsible for any injury the dog might do. When a person was bitten by a dog all lie had to- prove was the ownership of the dog, and the owner would- be held to 'be primarily responsible for damages. His Honor quoted from recent authorities on the question of the liability of a dog owner. They would have to consider whether the mischievous disposition of the dog had been created by the -action of the children or that the head of the house had, by liarboring the dog, rendered himself a statutory owner, There warno doubt that the defendant allowed his dog to run at large, and it was just as well that the public should know that in such circumstances, should that dog bite anyone, the owner, according to law, would be prima facie responsible for any damage that might be caused by the dog. A dog owner was legally bound to keep his dog within his own premises, but in the ease being lieard the defendant did not appear to think lie bad -any responsibility in the matter, but rather that the responsibility rested with the plaintiff to keep the dog off her premises. Continuing, His Honor commented upon the contradictory evidence which had been given. He referred to the demeanour of the plaintiff and defendant while in the box, and said that it was essentially a matter for the jury to deckle which was telling the truth. There could be no suggestion of forgetfulness, unless, perhaps, defendant and his wife Mrs i nemson, had exceedingly bad memories. It would be improper for him to express any personal opinion as to the evidence. On the question of damages they, if they found the defendant to be responsible, were entitled to assess a reasonable, but not a punitive sum. They had merely to take into consideration the amount of the injury done by defendant's dog. If they found ■Defendant to be responsible they were entitled to allow damages for the pain and suffering of the little girl, also the question of the extent of any permanent injury. He did not think that according to law, the little girl was obliged to submit to any operation for the possible removal of the rears. If the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict it was their duty to assess as damages a. sum that would he reasonable compensation -for injuries received. The jury retired at 3.30 p.m. and returned at 3.55 p.m. with a verdict for plaintiff. Damages were assessed by them at £69 7s. His Honor entered up judgment accordingly with costs on the lowest scale. INTERPRETATION OF A AVIL-L. The 'next case called was that of -Annie Gertrude -Hale (Mr G. Stock) v. George Cuthbert Hale and others (Mr J. W. Nolan). The case consisted of an application for an originating summons in the estate of AYm. Frederick Hale, deceased, for an order interpreting the will. The will was a most complicated document, apparently inexplicable, and alter both Counsel had addressed the Court the document was gone through, and His Honor intimated liis intention o; considering bis judgment. The Court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-dav.