Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1907-01-23
AGAINST "sTRAP MUzzLEs."
Judge Holds They Do Not Meet Re-
quirements Of Law.

quirements Of Law.
Judge Kennedy of the Newton ~ r
trict court sounded the death kneil in
that city Of the socalled strap muz.
zles" for dogs this morning when he
decreed that p dog fitted with such a
continuance, one Of which was exhib-
tied in count, was neither properly or
effectively DuzZled, inasmuch as it
could open its jaws and bite If it so
desired This decision it is believed.
will be of interest to the public on
account of the widespread discuss on
at present over the new muzzle laws
The strap muzzle' is in uniYet-
sal use wherever the laws are in eff
feet. 1t is light, durable and inexpen-
siye, and can be altered to fit any
canine. Nine-tenths Of the muzlles
in use are of this variety Newton
was among the first Of the municipal
tiles to pass an ordinance making the
muzzling or restraining of dogs i'm.
peratiye. Immediately after the law
went into effect the police were both
cred by citizens who harbored the lie.
fusion that simply by putting any
kind of a muzzle on their dogs they
were fulfilling the requirements of the
law. Several cases We're repo led
where muzzled dogs had attacked pc.
destrians and bitten them.
The defendants in the cases were
George Rice of Warren avenue, West
Newton, and Michael j. O'Neil OF
Cherry place in the same section
O'Neil owns a bulldog and the ace
pet is a large animal of the poiu'cr
species. On Tuesday last, these two
dogs engaged in fight in front of
street, West Newton. 1t required the
services of the two policemen doiuy
house duty as well as passing team.
ster to separate them Both wore
muzzles of the strap variety and, ac
coIding to the testimony of those
who witnessed the affair, each had
full use of his jaws. The police ie
termined to make it a test case and
accordingly the owners Of both ami
mails were summoned into court AMI
charged with having evaded the muz.
zle law. Rice was represented by an
, attorney.
A peculiar feature of the case was
that counsel had Rice's dog brought
/, into court AS an exhibit, wearing he
same muzzle that he wore on the
day of the fight. Judge Kennedy ex.
amined the continuance carefully and
requested the owner to open rAe
dogs jaw as wide as possible. The
result of this test astonished the
Judge, who declared that the animal
could open its jaws wide enough to
carry off a good-sized bone This re-
suit was the same even though the
muzzle was strapped so tightly as to
have the appearance of hurting the
animals jaws. The court stated
that such a contrivance was little bet
ter than a halter and in no way Giu
it conform with the requirements OF
the law He stated, however, that
he believed the intentions of both the
defendants we're good and that they
were under the impression that they
were doing right, and accordingly he
found them not guilty of the charge.
In speaking Of the case the court
declared that the chief Of police
should issue circulars informing each
citizen of the decree and the total in
efficiency of the strap rIuz1ies'' as
thew are universally applied. IT. aft
er receiving the circulars. they still
persisted in using such Eluzzles, then
they were guilty Of wilful violation Of
the law and ought to be fined accord
ingly The law provides penalty of
not more than s25 for each offence
Boston Transcript.