$100-Fine on Dog Owner keeper, whose dog Miss V. S. Cowper as she was making purchases at a provision store, 396 North Soochow Road, on June 8, found guilty on a charge of eriminal negligence preferred by the M. Police and was fined $100 by the First Special District Court on. Thursday morning. Mr. Delbuch said hho would appeal against the decision.
Mr. T. 3. Lea, Assistant "Muni cipal Advocate, outlining the case on Tuesday, June 18, stated that the complainant, Miss' Cowper, re-Ported to the Police that she' was at 396 North Soochow Roa: vision store, on June 8 on legitimate Dusiness when she was attacked and bitten by the accused's dog. The complainant was first treated at the General Hospital and then by Dr.
Gardiner. The accused admitted the dog was his and. the dog. was later examined by the Health Department.
Miss Cowper is not the only person who has been attacked by the acloused's dog. Mr. Lea told the Court that on Janiary 30°this year, a Miss J.P. Kochiar, residing in the Embankment Building, was attacked by the same dog and on May 25, the animal bit Wong Ah-yung, a Chinese girl The accused, questioned by the Police, said that he had kept the dog under proper control, but the animal was later set free by a servant who id not have it muzzled.
Thursday's hearing commenced with the Judge questioning the accused why he had not muzzled his dog after receiving repeated warnings from the Police. The Judge fur~ ther asked how long the accused had been in possession of the dog and what Kind of dog it was.
The accused stated that he had had the dog for the past six months and was a watch-dog. The accused Genied having received repeated warnings from the Police and said he was wamed only once and that, on
dog. As fo why he had not had his {hat account, he planned to sell the dog muzzled, the accused stated that was because' he had kept his dog in special hut in which the animal was tied up. If he had muzzled his and Kept it in the small hut, It would have driven the animal mad.
The Judge said he had never heard that 2 muzzled dog would become mad, The accused then said that his dog attacked the complainant only after latter had raised her arm. This statement was denied by the come vi} Plainant who, in reply to the Judge, said that she did mot see the dog when it frst attacked her from behind.
The question of responsibility for the trouble was then dealt with by Mr.. 8, Lea, Assistant Municipal Advocate, who said that! the fact that the complainant had been attacked and bitten by the accused's dog was of disputed, so the question was who Jshould be held responsible. That his dog was a fierce one was well-known, to the accused who had stated that the had chained it up. The Police, Mr, Lea continued, had given the accused repeated warnings to muzzle his dog, Dut the accused had failed to comply. and furthermore had allowed a fierce dog to enter a store where. many customers made purchases daily. The accused should have taken every precaution, but he had been negligent in. this respect. Therefore he should be held responsible, Mr. Lea concluded.
Defending the' accused, Int. Ngai Tebong-lin, of the law firm of M, Paul Premet, argued that his client was not in the store when his dog attacked the complainant and that should not be held responsible for the trouble because another man had released the dog without his permission, As most, his client was responsible under civil law, counsel said, Judgment Against Native Bank Judgment in the sum of $15,672.06 was awarded the Vu Tsin bank in its action against the Yung Sing native bank in the First Special District Court last Wednesday. The defendant institution closed on April 21. The court ordered that if it could not meet the payment, the shareholder [should be held responsible for the settlement of this obligation. A written judgment is to be given shortly.
The plaintiff bank was represented by Mr. Chang Teh-chin, while Mr, Hsu Tsu-yen appeared for the defence, According to Mr. Hsu Pao-ling, manager of the Shanghai branch of the plaintiff institution which has its headquarters in Tientsin, the defendant bank sent a canvasser to him and persuaded him to open an account with the defendant bank. No sooner had the plaintiff deposited the above sum with the native bank than it closed its doors, Another action has also been heard in the same court against the same native bank by the Sin Wen Hwa Publishing Company for the payment of a deposit of $24,600. Dr, D. Chen; who represented the plaintiff firm. urged the Court to act on one of the regulations of the Ministry of Finance to the effect that the heads of native banks which have closed should be held responsible for the Payment of debts. Judgment is expected to be delivered in a few days.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.