The Express.
London, England, 1864-12-03 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Disc. 2.

Sittings at Niai Prim in Middlassx.—(iiistore 20. Justice
Willis ends Special Jury.)
CARE V. THE AGIIICELTUILIL HALL COMPANY (LOllll4
♦ FEROCIOUS DOG.

This was an action to rTsii-ol4rriatnst in coesequenes of
the plaintiff bevies been bitten at Dog Show at the
Agricultural Hall last summer.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Prentice appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Lush. Q.C., Mr. Garth. and Mr. Mar-
shall Gridlt, for the defendants.

The leintiff, • youngnian,Was the son of Mr. Our, a
licensed victualler, and the proprietor of Clan's Dining
Rooms in the Strand ; and about 8 o'clock on the evening
of the lot of June he was with his uncle at the Islington Dog
Show, and when paraieg the dog No. 380. • Russian blood-
hound, and the largest dog in the show, he said to his uncle,
"That is • remarkably large dog," and indicated the one he
meant by a wave of his right hand. The dog, which was
lying down with his head upon his paws, instantly sprung
forward, sod seized hi hand arid tore it in &terrible manner.
Ho suffered very much from the injury, his band was in •
&ling for six weeks, and be had lost the power of feeling
from one of his fingers and from the palm of hie hand. Oa
the morning of the 3rd Jou Mr. Carr went to the office of
the defendants' company, and having asked for the manager
be saw two gentlemen, and complained of what had hap-
pared. One of the gentlemen said, "He is • terribly
rags besot, he fought two other dogs when they were
taking him away."
Mr. Can, in inns-examination, said that he could not
swear that it was Mr. Sidney, the company's manager, or
Mr. Douglas, the superintendent of the show, that made
this statement as to the character of the dog ; but be
believed that he bad spoken to both gentlemen upon the
matter. Of mane, in order to render the company liable
in this action, it was neceman to show that they knew that
the dog was accustomed to bite mankind; and some die-
cusaion took place as to how the cowpony could be fixed
with this knowledge.
Mr. Lush admitted that it would be sufficient to show
that Mr. Sidney knew the dog was ferocious.
The Solicitor Gemini contended that it would be enough
tf Mr. Douglas had this knowledge, because the catalogue
said " all communications on the subject of the show to be
made either to Mr. Jobs Douglas, the superiatendant, or to
S. Sidney, Esq., the escretuy and manager."
Mr. Foochato, • bookbinder, said that on the 30th May
he was at the show with his wife, when the dog in question
seized his hand, which wee swinging at his aide as he was
walking, and so hurt him that be was still wider the
doctor's hands. On the afternoon of the let of June he saw
Mr. Douglas, described the dog, and complained of his hurt.
Hs said that vitas had better see Mr. Sidney ; sod two
or three days afterwards witness saw Mr. Sidney and ap-
plied for compensation. He got none, but was told it was
his own fault.
Mr. Warren, • packing-case maker, said that he was at
the show on the 31st May. He patted the dog and it bit
him. He complained to • keeper, who said the dog was a
savage fellow.
Mr. Willcox said that he was at the show between 6 and
7oe the evening of the let June, when • friend drew his
&intim to the dog. Witness said be was as ugly brute;
and
.pointing to the next animal said, "There is • better
of a dog." The bloodhound immediately seined
7iternel, but witness had the presence of mind to let hi
head remain in the mouth of the dog until the animal
' voluntarily let it go.
Mr. lowlier, the medical man who attended the plain-
tiff, rid that he first saw the band on the 2nd of June,
and at that time it was much swollen and irritated. It was
torn in ball-a-dozen directions. A portion of the palm of the
hand was torn op, exposing the blood vessels and tendons.
The nerves of the middle finger were oo much destroyed
that they had to be removed, and there would consequently
be deficient sensation in that finger for the remainder of
life. Mr. Cave suffered a good deal from constitutional
disturbance in (*inequities of the accident, and his general
health continued deteriorating down to the present time.
For the defence it was said that there tad been no nog-
ligeoce on the part of the company. The platform upon
which the dogs were exhibited was five feet eight inches in
width, and they were so chained that they could not teach
further than two feet six inches from the barrier, a thin
iron rope, at the edge of the platform. The way in which
this was known, was that the dogs were six fest apart
and when they were chaired up their heads were drawn
towards each other so as to see that they could not bite one
another.

Mr. Sidney and Mr. Douglas denied that they had ever
heard at the time of the plaintiffs accident that the dog bad
bitten anybody. Mr. Denise said that be had freqiieetly
handled the dog, and never saw him exhibit any bed
tamper.
Mr. Fryer, a gentleman who bought the dog for 251., said
that before be bought it be tried every means to see if it
was quiet, because be wished to have it in the house. He
pointed at the dog to try to irritate it, and put bread into
its mouth and took it out again. He continued his
experiments upon the dog for half an hour without
effect. After he bought it, children frequently played
with the dog. Withers for several weeks took it out walking
in the streets ; and he never saw • large dog that waa eo
completely quiet. He sold it for 100 pintos.
The keeper al m described the dog am quiet, though he
admitted that Warren bad complained to him of being
bitten ; but he denied that he admitted that the dog was
savage. Oath* contrary, be said that it was Warren's °lra
fault, for getting too near the dog.
Mr. Justice Will.. said that to entitle the plaintiff to
recover the jury most be satisfied that the dog had • pica.
bar propensity to bite pimple ; and that the company,
through their agents, having the control and management
of the place, knew beforehand that the dog had bitten some
other pinyon. Further, that having this knowledge, they
did not felts proper care to prevent semi car accidents • and
lastly, that the plaintiff himself did not contribute by his
own negligence to the accident.
A juryman asked if acompany exhibiting animals that
might injuremankind, without knowing that any partioalar
animal was vicious, were not booed to afford sufficient pre-
tactical against injury?
Mr. Justice Will,. explained that at all events the
plaintiff did not put his case upon that ground, for the
declaration alleged that the defendants knew that this par-
ticular animal was accustomed to bite mankind.
The jury, after considering the matter for an hoar, toned
for the plaintiff—damages 1001.
Mr. Justice Wiles observed that that was exactly the
verdict and the sexiest which bad pawed through We owe '
mind as the right one.
A juryman said that he bad often seen this arbibition,
and be thought that it was very desirable that the dap
should be placed further away from the visitors.