The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-03-06 00:00:00

SHOCKING INJURIES BY A DOG.

On Saturday, at the Marylebone Police-court, Mr.
Hugh Wharton, a solicitor, of 10, Blenheim-road, St.
John's-wood, appeared before Mr. Newton at the
instance of Mrs. Lucy Luck, of 10. Chippenbaur
mews, Harrow-road, for on the 10th February having
a dog which was dangerous and not under proper
control. Mr_ Pain_ nppeared for the complainant
and Mr. C. Jones was for the defendant. Mr. Pain
said his client was acquainted with Susan Austin, who
at that time was servant to the defendant. On the
day in question, Austin took out a fox terrier for an
airing, and called on Mrs. Luck, whom she found nt
home with her three little children. While in con'
versation Mrs. Luck noticed the restlessness of the
dog, and asked Austin if the animal was likely to bite
the child, which it seemed to be sniffing at. Austio
said she did not think the dog would bite. but sbe
had scarcely uttered the words when the animal seized
hold of her little boy on the face. Mr. Luck St
once lifted the child up into her arms, the dog the
while holding on to the child's face until it dropped,
as the result of its own weight, carrying with it 0
large piece of the child's flesh. The animal thee
jumped up again and seized hold of the elbow of
Mrs. Luck, who, greatly terrified, rushed out of the
room oi her way into the street. When she reached
the top of the staircase the dog seized the child
'e
leg, and she dragged it down quite four steps before
It would let go its hold. She managed to get out of
the house and give the child into the custody of
coachman, and then she became insensible. The child
had since remained under medical treatment, and
would be disfigured for life. Subsequently, the cony
plainant, in the company of a friend, went to Mr•
Wharton's house. Instead of hearing what she bed
to say, they called it an imposition, ordered her out
of the house, and said that if she did not go a police'
man would be sent for and she would be turned out.
The dog had shown itself vicious to other people;
of which there could be no doubt the defendant Oa
been made aware. The question of compensation
would be considered elsewhere, but he asked the
magistrate to order that the dog should be do"
stroyed at once.—Mr. Newton said that under 130
circumstances would he order that unless the dog
was mad. For medical reasons it was most important,
so he was informed, that a dog should not he
destroyed for say two or three months after it had
bitten a person. Mr. Pain then called Mrs. Lucl>.
who, in her evidence, bore out what Mr. Pain had
said. Susan Austin also gave evidence, and in cross'
examination said she ought not to:have taken the nog
out on the day in question, and she was sorry diet
she did. Mr. Jones contended that his client was not
liable, as the servant took the dog out without hie
sanction. His client had not been so unfeeling as had
been described, for Mrs. Wharton had called on Mrs.
Luck and had taken the child some oranges. Mr.
Wharton had had the dog ten years, and was ignoran
of its having any vice. Mr. Newton made an order,
for the dog to be kept under proper control, Etna
warned Mr. Wharton that should the dog bite eel
one in the future he would be liable. ,

Pain: