BYGONE GRIMSBY: DOG BIT CHUNK OF FLESH OUT OF BOY'S LEG

From the archives - August 17, 1894

At the Grimsby County Court today, his Honour Judge Stephen and a jury had before them the case of Shaw v Gale. 

It was an action brought by a boy named Harold Shaw, who sued through his father, William Shaw, of  Hare Street, coal dealer, claiming £25 damages through the bite of a bull-and-terrier dog belonging to the defendant, T. H. Gate, also of  Hare Street.

Mr Bloomer (Reed and Bloomer) represented the plaintiff, and Mr Barker, the defendant.

From the evidence of the complainant, it appeared that on Sunday, March 14, he was returning from the Sunday school with some other boys. 

The defendant's son, Leonard, was outside his father's house with the dog. 

A boy named Spraston scraped his foot on the footway, and the defendant's son chased the boys. 

He succeeded in catching the plaintiff, threw him to the ground and set the dog on to him, with the result that the animal bit him on the left leg just above the ankle. 

The result was that he was in the house nine weeks where he was attended by Dr Pockett. 

The effect of the bite was that he always felt pain when rough weather was coming, and had been frightened of dogs ever since. 

In cross-examination by Barker, the plaintiff admitted he was outside the house about fortnight afterwards. 

Some boys had thrown stones at the dog, but he had not been one of them. 

After hearing other evidence, William Shaw, father of the plaintiff, said when he confronted the defendant about the matter, and told him his lad had set the dog upon plaintiff, the reply had been: "My great wooden-headed lad is always getting into some scrape - and the blooming dog is more trouble than it's worth."

Dr Pockett said a piece of flesh had been taken out of the plaintiff's leg, and the wound was a nasty, lacerated one. He saw him three times weekly for about eight weeks. 

In his opinion two years would have elapse before the boy would be perfectly safe from any after-effects.

Mr Barker stated that the defendant, acting upon recommendation, had destroyed the dog.

In further evidence, the  defendant said the dog was a fox terrier, and, before it bit the plaintiff, he had never received the slightest complaint about the animal.

After His Honour had summed up, the jury retired, and, after an absence of 12 minutes, gave verdict in favour of the plaintiff for £10, including costs. 

His Honour, however, pointed out that it was no part of the jury's duty to deal with the costs, and the Judge therefore gave plaintiff a verdict for £10 to include the doctor's bill.