Above photo, 1940s, kindly sent by Tony Smith.

Above painting, date unknown.

Chatham News, Saturday 27 August 1870.

A Dog Case.

Mr. William Wray, landlord of the "George Inn," High Street, Rochester was charged on summons with unlawfully urging a dog to attack John Waterson, on the 21st inst.

Defendant denied having set the dog at complainant. Prosecutor who said he resided at the "Lord Nelson," Brook, Chatham, deposed that on Sunday, about 20-minutes to six o'clock, he was walking through the High Street, Rochester; and when opposite Mr. Wray's, 3 dogs flew at him; one bit him and the other two barked at him. Defendant called the dogs off him by saying "Here, here." Defendant stood just inside his doorway the whole time laughing at witness. The dog bit witness on the left leg. Defendant must have seen the dog bite witness. Witness here showed a place in his trousers, and also one on his leg, where he alleged the dog bit him.

Superintendent Radley looked at the places, and remarked that he thought the bite on the leg was an eruption on the skin; there was no mark in the trousers that he could see.

Witness remarked that the holes in the trousers might have closed up.

Superintendent Radley further examined the leg of the man's trousers, and pointed out that the blood on the trousers was outside and not inside, as it most probably would be if the dog has drawn blood.

The witness then continued his evidence, and in reply to the Bench said defendant did not set the dog at in. Did not say to defendant next morning, "What about the dog's fighting me? aren't you going to settle the matter?"

When witness went to the defendant's house next morning defendant said the dog had not bitten him; it had only bit his trousers. Defendant had no whip in his hands when he called the dogs off witness.

Alderman Coles said this was a serious matter as against defendant, or any one else, as much that the complainant alleged that the defendant urged the dogs, or set them to witness to bite him. Was that so?

Witness said:- No, defendant did not urge the dogs to set them at him. He did not go into defendant's and asking him to settle it. If defendant had been civil to witness he did not think he should have brought the case before the Bench. Defendant called the dogs off witness and they immediately obeyed him.

Defendant stated that two of his dogs were playing in the street on Sunday, when complainant, who was passing, attempted to kick one of them; the dogs commenced barking at him; here again attempted to kick the dogs. The dogs were called off, and complainant pursued them down the lane, and swore he will kill them. Complainant came next morning, and wanted the matter settled. Complainant was told to go about his business. When complainant attempted to kick the dogs a smaller dog took hold of his left leg of complainant's trousers and shook it.

Mrs. Angela Thorp deposed that yesterday morning complainant came to Mr. Wray's and asked what recompense Mr. Wray was going to make for the dog biting him. Complainant pulled up the leg of his trousers, but witness could not see any mark. Mr. Wray said the dog had not bitten complainant and he told him to go about his business. Complainant said that he should go to the police station, and see what he could do in the matter.

The Magistrates' Clerk asked complainant if he wished to ask the witness any questions.

Complainant remark, factitiously, that it appeared to be of no use, as the witness and defendant both appear to swear alike. (Laughter.)

The Magistrates retired to the Council Chamber for consultation; on their returning to Court, the Mayor said the defendant was fined 2/6, and 10/- costs; and he (the Mayor) would further call his attention to the 3rd by-law of the city, and if defendant's dog touched any one after such notice he would be fined in the full penalty of £5. The Mayor then read the 3rd by-law of the city, which sets forth that no person within the borough shall keep unmuzzled any ferocious dog to the common danger, and upon conviction being proved the penalty of not exceeding £5 and not less than to 2/6, shall be inflicted. The Mayor remark that defendant's dog by the present case of proved itself to be ferocious; therefore, if the defendant was again brought up on a similar charge, the heaviest penalty would be inflicted.

The defendant remarked that he considered the complainant had committed perjury, as the dog had never bitten him. He inquired of the bench had power to order the man to be examined to see if the place pointed out on his leg were from the bites of a dog; he believed that they were caused by harvest bugs.

The Magistrates informed Mr. Wray that they had no power to grant an order for complaint's leg to be medically examined; on which decision Mr. Wray expressed his sorrow, and paid the fine and costs inflicted.