How has the court treated the issue of credibility in the trial of a witness in a dog case?

The appellant also raises an issue about the admission of alleged hearsay evidence of a statement made by one of the appellant's witnesses. Although this evidence may have been relevant in a general way to the issue of credibility, its primary relevance related to the issue of contributory negligence. Having regard to the jury's finding that the dogs did not attack the appellant, we do not reach the issue of contributory negligence. Once again, appellants’ counsel raised no objection to the admission of this evidence or to the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury concerning hearsay. Particularly in the absence of the closing addresses, we are unable to conclude that this issue was central to the jury’s deliberations as to whether an attack occurred. Similar considerations apply to the appellants’ argument that the rule in Browne v. Dunn was offended.