THE DOGS' HOME AND SIR CHARLES WARREN. UTO THE EDITOR
or THE " SPECTATOR." J SIR,—Allow me to inform Sir Charles Warren, through the columns of your paper, that the story of the gentleman's dog sent to Battersea in company with what was termed "a rabid dog," was not forwarded by me to the Spectator. The case is widely known, and I have nothing to do with its circulation, except that I lent a letter lent to me, to another person to read, and to the same person I also sent Sir Charles's letter. The Dogs' Home authorities are responsible for the story they saw fit to furnish to the dog's owner. This dog was taken from almost his very doors, having escaped into the street by accident. When traced to Battersea, recognised and reclaimed, it was, however, absolutely refused to him, on the plea that it had been sent to the Home in company with a "rabid dog." The truth, therefore, lies between the police and the managers of the Dogs' Home ; and if they think it worth while to do so, let 'them settle it between themselves. As far as I am con- cerned, and the many I know interested in the matter, we are not at all consoled by Sir Charles Warren's explanation, since the dismal fact remains that but for the officiousness of the police—who are rarely where they are wanted, unless a dog is concerned—Mr. john Haye's healthy, affectionate, and faithful friend would now be alive and well. To us it makes little difference whether the hours spent in company with a "rabid dog" were in a stable or a van. The dog was killed through the action of the police and the Home combined, and if justice were not at present dormant on this question, the police or the Home would have to pay heavy compensation for their blundering stupidity.—I am, Sir, &c.,
GERTRUDE STOCK, (Treasurer of the Dog Owners' Protection Association), about which all information can be obtained from the Secretary, 49 Upper Baker Street.
Previous page
