§ MR. DAWSON (Leeds, E.)asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Commissioner of Police has authority under any Act of Parliament to order that dogs shall be captured or their owners summoned when the dogs are under the control of those accompanying them, even if they be not muzzled or led; and, whether he is cognisant of decisions to the contrary effect by stipendiary magistrates of the Metropolis?
§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. MELLOR) (Grantham)(for Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL): By 30 & 31 Vict., c. 134, s. 18—
The Commissioner of Police, if he sees fit, may issue a notice requiring any dog while in the streets and not led by some person to be muzzled in such a manner as will admit of the animal breathing and drinking without obstruction; and the police may take possession of any dog found loose in the streets without such muzzle during the currency of such order, and may detain such dog until the owner has claimed it, has provided a proper muzzle, and has paid all expenses connected with such detention.
§ MR. DAWSONasked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that Mr. Biron had given a decision to the effect that a dog without a muzzle following its owner was to be considered as under proper control?
§ MR. MELLORsaid, he was not aware of any decision under the Act to which he had referred; but he had seen in the newspapers a letter in which Mr. Biron's decision was mentioned. The proceedings before the magistrate appeared to have been taken under a different Act of Parliament to that above named—namely, the Dogs Act, 1871.
§ MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)asked, whether, as there seemed to be some doubt as to the law on that subject, the hon. and learned Gentleman would try to induce one of the Government Whips I to remove the block placed on his (Mr. Macfarlane's) Bill for clearing up the law relating to it?