The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-05-27 00:00:00

DOG-BITING CASES.

,In the High Court of Justice, the cause of "Ward
v. Vickers has been heard before Baron Huddleston
and a common jury, and was an action to recover
compensation in damages for injuries resulting from
the bite of the defendant's dog. The plaintiff is a letter
carrier at Fulham, and the defendant, who is a bar-
rister, resides there. Toe dog in question, a black
retfiever, bit the plaintiff on the leg as he was sorting
the letters at the box between 7 and 8 p.m, on the 221
of June, 1E75, on the road. According to the plaintiff's
case the dog had flown at five other persons before;
but there was no evidence that he had bitten any of
them; and one man who was alleged to have been
attacked while on a bicycle did not appear. The
plaintiff had to have his leg cauterized, and was dis-
abled for six weeks thereby. The dog himself was pro-
duced in Court and did not present a very fierce ap-
pearance.
The case for the defence was that the dog V 511.9 per-
fectly quiet, and that the plaintiff had kicked the dog
and thereby brought the attack on himself. In sup-
port of this the defendant's little boy, of nine years old,
was called, and deposed to the occurrence and the kick
by the plaintiff. The defendant and his wife and a
friend also gave evidence, the first stating that he had
had the dog since it was a puppy in August, 1E69. It
was the tamest dog he ever knew, and was always
about the house with the children and servants. The
ladies also said the marks on the plaintiff's legs were
shown to them on the evening in question were very
trifling scratches, and hardly bleeding at all. Out of
kindness the defendant had paid 7's. 61., the doctor's
fee for examining the leg.
Baron Huddleston, in summing up, told the jury he
had allowed them to see the dog, following a precedent
set by Lord Chief Justice Erle, and approved by Lord
Campbell, that they might form their own opinion.
His Lordsl ip commented on the absence of any
evidence that anyone was bitten before the plaintiff.
There were three questions for the jury—First, was the
dog mischievous and accustomed to bite? Secondly,
did the defendant know of this? The plaintiff was
bound to satisfy them on those two points in or ler to
entitle him to the verdict. Thirdly, did the plaintiff
kick the dog as deposed to by the defendant's son and
so bring the injury on himself? In that case they were
bound to find for the defendant.
The jury, after an absence of 25 minutes, returned
into Court with a verdict for the defendant.

In the Court of Appeal from Inferior Courts, West-
minster, before Baron Cleasby and Mr. Justice Grove,
the case of "Mansfield v. Badderley " has heen heard,
and was an appeal from the decision of a Judge of the
Bloomsbury County Court. The plaintiff was a
domestic servant of the defendant'o; who was a dress
maker. The defendant, having valuable dresses and
work upon her premises, kept a dog for the purpose of
protecting them. This dog was of a ferocious dispo-
sition, had bitten on Italian, and survivad to bite the
plaint if. When the plaintiff WilS about to take some
tea-things from the kitchen into a workroom,
the do 4 rushed at her and s-iz,4l her by the
let,. The dog was usually kept tied no. but on the
occasion in question he was nt large. When the rule
nisi was moved for, Baron Bramwell suggested that as
it appeared that the dog was quiet until the plaintiff
began to take away the tea-things it might have sup-
posed that she was asporting the tea thing ani mo f (trend i
The County Court Judge nonsuited the plaint.if. It was
contended that this nonenit was right, on the ground
that the ferocity of the dog being known to the plaintiff,
it must be taken that it was one of the risks which she
an by staying in the defendant's employment.
The Court, however, thought that the risk which
the plaintiff undertook to run was that of the dog tied
up, and not of the dog at large, and that the defendant
was liable for not keeping the dog tied up.
Judgment reversed,