balance until next week.

Acting Magistrate the Wor. Kim White said he would give his judgement on Tuesday afternoon.

The court has heard how an Akita-type dog attacked cattle, sheep and goats in the Ferry Reach from 1991 until it was caught in March 1992.

Kim Ingemann denies being the owner of the dog, and letting it stray and cause damage to livestock.

He has argued he was not in control of the dog at the time.

Yesterday lawyers finished summing up, focusing on the key question of dog-ownership.

Defence Counsel Mr. Richard Hector said he took his interpretation of ownership from the Dog Act 1978, since the alleged offences occurred before the 1992 Act came into effect.

Mr. Hector said there were two tests of ownership: if the dog is licensed, the owner's name is on the licence; and if the dog is unlicensed, the "keeper'' of the dog owns it.

The court heard from Ingemann that the dog was registered to Ms Tanya Vallis, the mother of Ingemann's two sons.

Mr. Hector claimed Crown Counsel Mr. Melvin Douglas could not prove the dog was not licensed because researchers were not looking for a dog registered to Ms Vallis.

And the dog had not been under Ingemann's control since the end of August 1991, the defence said.

Ingemann has said he repeatedly called Government Dog Warden Mr. Leonard (Shinah) Simmons to collect the dog because he could neither catch it nor control it. Mr. Simmons denied this.

If Ingemann could not control this dog, he should not be liable under the Summary Offences Act, said Mr. Hector.

Mr. Melvin Douglas questioned the defence's claim that the dog suddenly became "wild''.

Mr. Douglas quoted Section 3.1 of the Dog Act 1978: "Any keeper for more than 14 days is deemed to have acquired the dog unless he can show he is keeping it for some other person.'' Mr. Douglas said the defence should have claimed Ms Vallis was the owner before the researchers looked through the dog licences.

When Ingemann collected the dog from the SPCA in January, 1992, after its rampage, he represented himself as the dog's owner -- he did not say he was collecting it on behalf of the actual owner, Mr. Douglas said.

The dog was found on Ingemann's premises when Mr. Simons came to collect it in March 1992. Mr. Douglas said this was "clear evidence'' that Ingemann's story was questionable.

Mr. Douglas claimed that Ingemann was guilty as charged of allowing his dog to stray and attack livestock.