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

LAW INTELLIGENCE,---Dec. 2,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, in Middlesex, before Mr Justice
Willes and a Special Jury.)
CARR V. THE AGRICULTURAL HALL COMPANY (LIMITED).
A FEROCIOUS DOG.
This was an action to recover;damages, in consequence of
the plaintiff having been bitten et the 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 Marshall
Griffiths for the defendant.
The plaintiff, young man, was the son of Mr Carr, a
licensed victualler, and the proprietor of Carr's Dining-
rooms, in the Strand, and about eight o'clock on the even-
ing of the Ist of Juno he was with his uncle at the Islington
dog-show; and when passing the dog No. 330, a Russian
bloodhound, and the largest dog in the show, he said to his
uncle, "That is a remarkably large dog," and indicated the
ono he meant by a wave of his right hand. The dog, which
was lying down with his head upon his paws, instantly
sprang forward and seized his hand, tearing it in a terrible
manner. He suffered very much from the injury, his hand
was in a sling for six weeks, and ho has lost the power of
feeling from one of his fingers and from the palm of the
hand. On the morning of the 3d of Juno Mr Carr went to
the office of the defendants' company, and having asked
for the manager, ho saw two gentlemen, and complained of
what had happened. One of tho gentlemen said, "Ho is
a terribly savage beast; he fought two other dogs when
they were taking him away."
Mr Carr, in cross-examination, said that he could not
swear that it was Mr Sidney, the company's manager, or
Mr Douglas, the superintendent of the show who made this
statement as to the character of the dog; but he believed
that he had spoken to both gentlemen upon the matter.
Of course, in order to render the company liable in this
action it was necessary to show that they knew that the
dog was accustomed to bite mankind, and some discussion
took place as to how the company 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-General contended that it would be enough
if Mr Douglas had this knowledge, because the catalogue
said, " All communications on the subject of the show to
be made either to Mr John Douglas, the superintendent, or
to S. Sidney, Esq., the secretary and manager."
Mr Fencham, a bookbinder, said that on May 30 ho was
at the show with his wife, when the dog in question seized
his hand, which was swinging at his side as he was walk-
ing, and so hurt him that he was still under the doctor's
hands. On the afternoon of Juno 1 he saw Mr Douglas,
described the dog, and complained of his hurt. He said that
witness had better see Mr Sidney; and two or three days
after witness saw Mr Sidney, and applied for compensation.
He got none, but was told it was his own fault.
Mr Warren, packing- case maker, said that ho was at the
show on May 31. He patted this dog and it bit him. He
complained to a keeper, who said the dog was a savage
fellow,

Mr Wilcox said that he was at the show between six and
seven on the evening of Juno 1, when a friend drew his
attention to the dog. Witness said he was an ugly brute,
and, pointing to the next animal, said, " There is a better
specimen of a dog." The bloodhound immediately seized
his hand, but witness had the presence of mind to let his
hand remain in the mouth of the dog until the animal volun-
tarily let it go,
Mr Forshaw, the medical man who attended the plaintiff,
said that ho himself first saw the hand on Juno 2, and that
at that time it was much swollen and irritated. It was torn
in half a dozen directions. A portion of the palm of the
hand was torn up, exposing the blood vessels and tendons.
The nerves of the middle finger were so much destroyed
that they had to be removed, and there would consequently
be deficient sensation in that finger for the remainder of
life. Mr Carr suffered a good deal from constitutional dis-
turbance in consequence of the accident, and his general
health continued deteriorated down to the present time.
For the defence it was said there had been no negli-
gence on the part of the company. The platform upon which
the dogs were exhibited was sft Bin in width and they
were so chained that they could not reach further than
2ft Gin 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 Oft apart, and when they were chained 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 plaintiff's accident that the dog
had bitten anybody. Mr Douglas said that he had fre-
quently handled the dog, and never saw him exhibit any
bad temper.
Mr Fryer, a gentleman who bought the dog for £25, said
that before he bought it he tried every means to see if it
was quiet, because he wished to have it in the house. lie
pointed at the dog to try to irritate it, and put bread into
its mouth and took it out again. He continued his expe-
riments upon the dog for half an hour without effect. After
he bought it children frequently played with the dog, wit-
ness t'Jr several weeks took it out walking in the streets,
and he never saw a large dog that wan so completely quiet.
fie sold it for 100 guineas,
The keeper also described the dog as quiet, though ho
admitted that Warren had complained of being bitten ; but
he denied that he had admitted that the dog was savage.
On the contrary, he said that it was Warren's own fault for
getting too near the dog.
Mr Justice Willes said that to entitle the plaintiff to re-
cover the jury must bo satisfied that the dog had a peculiar
propensity to bite people, and that the company, through
their agents having the control and management of the
place, knew beforehand that the dog had bitten some other
person. Further, that having this knowledge, they did not
take proper care to prevent similar accidents; and, lastly,
that the plaintiff himself did not contribute by his own ne-
gligence to the accident.
A juryman asked if a company exhibiting animals that
might injure mankind, without knowing that any particular
animal was vicious, were not bound to afford sufficient pro-
tection against injury.
Mr Justice Willes explained that at all events the plaintiff
did not pelt his case upon that ground, for the declaration
alleged that the defendents know that this particular animal
was "accustomed to bite mankind."
The jury, after eonsidering the matter for an hour,
found for the plaintiff, damages £lOO.
Mr ,justice Willes observed that this was exactly the
verdict and the amount whiteh had passed through his own
mind sa the right one.
A juryman said that he had often seen this exhibition,
and ho thought that it wee Very desirable that the dugs
should be planed further away from the visitors.
Mr Justice Willes replied that that was very much a
matter of individual feeling, turning upon whether the
persons were timid of dogs. lie had himself been to the
exhibition, and it seemed to be most admirably conducted.