Ordered to pay Lm150 after dog's death

Magistrate Michael Mallia yesterday ordered Emanuel Bugeja to pay Lm150 by way of damages to Gordon Ellul as compensation for the death of Ellul's dog.

The court heard that Ellul filed a writ requesting that Bugeja be condemned to pay Lm300 compensation for killing plaintiff's dog.

Bugeja pleaded he was not responsible for the dog's death.

It resulted from the evidence that on April 25, 1998, Ellul had gone hunting with his dog in the vicinity of Marsascala. Ellul's dog, a German pointer, had chased a white duck in an alleyway close to Bugeja's farmhouse. A few seconds later, three shots were heard emanating from the farmhouse. Ellul had confronted Bugeja and the latter had denied shooting the dog but had said he had shot a bird. This denial was made before the dog was found shot dead in Bugeja's field.

Ellul reported this incident to the police and criminal proceedings were filed against Bugeja who was fined Lm25 by the Magistrates' Court.

In his testimony before Magistrate Mallia, Bugeja admitted he had fired three shots, one in the air and two in the dog's direction. He said he had done so as he had seen the dog hunting some birds outside his yard.

It was established that the dog had died of multiple shot wounds.

Magistrate Mallia declared in his judgment there was no doubt that Bugeja had fired upon and killed Ellul's dog but the court had to establish whether he was justified in committing such a cruel act.

The legal presumption existed that a dog, as a domestic pet, was not to be considered as a danger to humans but rather as a beneficial being. As a result, dogs were to be treated properly, and unless evidence was produced to the contrary, the courts were to presume that the dog was a docile and peaceful animal. Bugeja had failed to prove that the dog in question was of mischievous propensity so as to justify his actions. It further resulted that the bird that Ellul's dog had given chase to was not in Bugeja's property.

The court concluded that Bugeja was not justified in his actions and that he was to compensate Ellul for the loss of his dog. In calculating the damages sustained by Ellul the court noted that plaintiff had purchased the dog for Lm150. Bugeja was thus ordered by the court to pay Ellul the sum of Lm150.