Vicious Dog

In January 1903, the police were called to deal with a vicious dog in Windermere Street.

The details
The Windermere Street dog had bitten several people, and resulted in charges being laid. The case against the dog owner was lost, because it was not his dog, it belonged to his wife: ALLEGED VICIOUS DOG.A QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP. CASE DISMISSED. T. A. Holden, dog inspector of the City, charged George Waller, with having been the owner of a dog which had on the 28th October, bit one Mrs Cox. Mr H. S. Barrett appeared for the council, and Mr D. Clarke represented the defendant.

Thomas A. Holden stated that he was dog inspector of the city, Mr Clarke objected, and said that the general appointment was not sufficient. The objection was noted. Witness said that be had seen defendant at the City Hall, when he denied having a dog, but when asked about Mrs Cox he said, "I haven’t got a dog, and until I have one registered you can’t prove that I am the owner." Later he admitted that there had been a dog running about his place. Three shillings had been given to the plaintiff to settle the matter, but this was handed back. Mr Barrett here put in a special resolution of the council agreeing to take proceedings, in the case, providing the council’s costs were guaranteed. Mr Clarke again objected, stating that it was not in compliance with the Dog Act. No proper resolution had been carried by the council.

After argument, the P.M. said he thought it was specific enough. Caroline Cox, married woman, living in Windermere street, deposed that on the 28th October Mr Waller’s dog rushed out and bit her on the leg, and then ran back into his yard. She would have been down on the ground only she clung to the fence. Witness saw Mr Waller afterwards, and he only laughed, and said, "I'll summon you for having been on my property", when she asked him what he was going to do. He did tell her that the same dog had bit his mother-in-law. (Laughter.) Mr Barrett—A man does not generally object to that. (Renewed laughter.) To Mr Clarke —I was not willing to take 5s. I did not send down for any money. I would have accepted anything reasonable.

R. E. Williams, City clerk, gave formal evidence. Constable Hooley was called, but Mr Clarke successfully objected, against his evidence being taken. Richard Mann, a boy, stated that he had seen the dog tearing at Mrs Cox’s dress. He gave his evidence in an unusually clear manner. Edwin Perry, who lived near Waller’s, said he had often seen a vicious St. Bernard dog round the latter’s place. Another neighbor gave, corroborative evidence. He stated that there were always a lot of dogs about the back of Mr Waller's property. Constable Stallard said he also had seen the dog at Waller’s.

Mr Clarke submitted that all the testimony of the prosecution had failed to furnish the prima facie evidence to meet the requirements of the Act. Mr Dickson thought there was sufficient general evidence. Mr Clarke then said that the dog belonged to Waller’s wife. Geo. Waller gave evidence to this effect. Mr Barrett—Is the dog registered? No. What does your wife do for it? Feeds it, and that. Well, she does that for you. (Laughter.) Why didn’t you tell people that it was hers? I didn’t see why I should. Is this the only property your wife had? Well, yes. When you knew that the animal had bit Mrs Cox. what did you do? Nothing. I did not believe it then. Who have you told that it belonged to your wife? No one, I think, except my counsel. Susan Waller, wife of the defendant, said the dog, belonged to her. Her husband had got it and given it to her. The information was dismissed, but no costs were allowed.