Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 30 October 1891
A Dog Scene at Conisborough.
John Glassby, glassblower, Conisborough, was charged with having a dangerous dog not under proper control.
Alice Ann Chapman, married, Conisborough, was the complainant.
Mr. Baddiley, solicitor, appeared for the defendant
The complainant, who had a child in her arms, which had a mark on its face, said to be the result of a dog bite, stated that on the 16th September she second complained to the defendant about the dog biting her child a mooed time. The bite was on the right cheek. The dog was a retriever.
The Chairman: Did you see the bite done?
Complainant: No, no one saw it done. But a neighbour saw my child lying on its back on the ground with its face bleeding sad the dog standing over it.
The Chairmen; You say it had bit the child before ?—Yes.
What marks had the child on its face?
lt had two teeth marks. The cheek was all over blood. I said to the defendant I was sorry to have to complain about the dog biting the child, and he replied, “Don’t bother, lass; I will make away with it to-night.” It was a desperate dog. She found that the dog had been sent away from Conisborough to Swinton, where a relative lived. Complainant was on friendly terms with the relative, and she went over to Swinton and mid her about the dog.
Mr. Baddiley: Why did you go to Swinton?
I went to defendant’s sister to not her on her guard. She said the dog ought to be destroyed.
Was it not muzzled?
It was muzzled since the 16th September at Conisborough, but it was not muzzled at Swinton. It is a furious dog.
Mr. Baddiley: We will see about this furious dog. Dr. Crowther said it was doubtful whether the marks on the child’s face were teeth marks.
Complainant: No, he didn’t. He, said they were teeth marks
Mr. Baddiley: Mr. Crowther has said he did not know whether they were teeth marks or a scratch.
The complainant: No, he didn’t. (Laughter
The Deputy Magistrates’ Clerk said a certificate had been sent which did not bear out Mr. Baddiley’s statement and which he handed to the solicitor.
Mr. Baddiley: That is not evidence.
The Deputy Clerk: It now.
Henry Chapman was the next witness, and he said a veterinary surgeon had stated that the dog had not got bad teeth.
Mr. Baddiley: Why was not the summons taken out before?
The Chairman: The dog has come back.
ln answer to a further question, the witness said the place on the child’s cheek was causticed before he saw it.
Mr. Baddiley You don’t know whether the child was knocked down accidentally or not? —No.
Jane Murphy was called and stated she heard the defendant tell the complainant he would make away with the dog.
Mr. Baddiley contended there was case within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. No bite was seen to be inflicted, but simply a bark heard and then the child was seen lying on the ground. It was not even shown that was knocked down.
The Chairmen: It’s face was bleeding.
Mr. Baddiley said it might not have been caused by the dog
Sarah Jane Eyre deposed to seeing the child lie on the ground bleeding, and the dog standing over it
The defendant was called and denied that his dog ferocious. He also denied that he said he would make away with the dog
Complainant: You did and I felt quite satisfied then. It took quite a load off my mind. (To the defendant) What did Arthur Wood say? —Defendant : Nothing.
Complainant: You are a false man.
Police sergeant Ambler and Police constable Trueman stated that they had heard no other complaints about the dog. Ambler said it had been an apparently quiet dog.
The magistrates ordered the defendant to keep the dog under proper control