The sorry saga of the woman driver presented with a £628 bill for veterinary treatment of a stray dog which she ran over has reached a satisfactory outcome, at least for two of the characters involved.

The dog has recovered from its broken leg and has been happily re-homed. And now West Yorkshire Police, who were earlier insisting that motorist Tina Wormald should pay a share of the £1,700 bill within 30 days, have agreed that they will drop the invoice.

It is a victory for common sense after the case was publicised in the T&A, which supported Mrs Wormald's claim that, having reported the accident involving a dog which she says ran in front of her car, she should not be held responsible for a sizeable chunk of the cost of its treatment. The police now seem to have agreed with that point of view.

However, while both dog and woman might well be happy with the way things have worked out, the news is less good for the police and the taxpayers as the full bill will now have to be met out of public money. It is understandable, in the circumstances, that the police are reported to be prudently querying the size of the bill.

This situation arose because of one simple fact: the police were not able to trace the owner of the dog - the one person who should have been liable to pay the bill. It is a case which, as we said at the time, reinforces the argument for compulsory microchipping of all dogs to enable their owners to be forced to face up to their responsibilities.