MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1188, 25 July 1911, Page 10

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M.) ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A DOG, LOCAL DOCTOR PROSECUTED, CHAEGES FAIL. The police proceeded against Dr. F. W. Mackenzie, of Wellington, for alleged illtreatment of a dog at Eastbourne. There were two informations, the first charging defendant with permitting the dog to remain with a rope fastened to' its body (in a manner likely to cause it pain) from June 11 to July 1. Tho second information charged defendant with neglecting to supply the dog with food between the same dates. Sub-Inspector Sheehan prosecuted, and Mr. C. H. Treadwell appeared for Dr. Mackenzie, who pleaded not guilty. Tho charges were taken separately. Edward Coulton stated in evidence that he was an old age pensioner, and had been allowed to reside in Dr. Mackenzie's hut, but received no wages. About six weeks ago (on a Sunday) Dr. Mackenzie visited the property, and wished to catch one of tho three dogs that were there. A snare was accordingly set at a hole. The dog was apparently afraid of Dr. Mackenzie, but, as soon as the latter turned his back, the dog proceeded to com© out from under the whare, and was caught in the snare. Tho doctor then endeavoured to catch the dog, but it was "too wild," and eventually broke away with the rope of the snare round its flanks. For a week witness did not see the dog, but, at the end of that time, ho noticed that it still had the ropo Tound its flanks, and he took word into town that it would be necessary to shoot the dog or\give it chloroform. Dr. Mackenzie then came over and gave tho dog morphia. Subsequently the dog used to follow witness about with the other dogs, but he was unable to catch it, and take tho rope off it.

To Mr. Treadwell: There were originally eight dogs in tho litter, but they had been taken away, one by one, until .only three were left. A snaro had been set for one on a previous occasion, but it was not caught that way. Witness fed the dog (mentioned in the present case) with the other dogs, when there was meat there to feed them. Eventually the dog was caught by Mr. M'Guire, tied up, and afterwards destroyed. To Sub-Inspector Sheehan: The butcher had been leaving, meat .for about nine months, but had suddenly stopped. ' Robert M'Guire, wood and coal merchant, Eastbourne, who had caught the dog and removed tho rope, found that there was a wound' from tho rope. This was perhaps a quarter of an inch deep but, under witness's care, the dog was recovering and when it was destroyed the wound on its back had practically healed. It was in what he called "good hunting condition" when it first came to him.

To Mr. Treadwell: The dog was destroyed by Inspector Seed. There was really no reason for its destruction. In another week it would have been well.

Charles Alexander Baker, Justice of the Peace, who gave tho order for the destruction of the dog,-gave it as his opinion that the animal was in a "pitiable condition" and considered that' it was "a mercy to put it out of misery." Mr. Treadwell: Do you know anything about dogs?—"l do." Did you employ a veterinary surgeon —"No."

And notwithstanding what Mr. M'Guire lias said and the fact that the dog hud been under treatment for a week and was improving, you took it upon yourself to order its destruction?—" Mr. M'Guire gave different evidence to-day to what he said to us then." What did he say then?—"He said very little." Did you take tho trouble to inquire as to whether Mr. M'Guire was looking after it or not?—" Wo." No, you didn't. What do you call pitiable condition"?—"A wretchedly miserable condition. , I understand that you aro not a friend of Dr. Mackenzie's?-"! am a friend of his. ' I have never been otherwise." Inspector Seed, of the S.P.C.A., considered that the dog was suffering agony. It was a mere skeleton, and was in 'a shocking state. Ho would havo liked to have destroyed it when he first saw it: uut' had no power to do so. Constable Simpson, of Eastbourne, also gave evidence. He considered that tho dog must havo suffered intense pain during the tune that tho rope was cutting into its hide. When witness called on Dr Mackenzie on July 11, in reference to the matter, tho latter stated that ha tho meat with the poison disappeared, he naturally thought tho dog had taken tho poison.

J,"^ snminedby Mr. Treadwell, witness sa d that the dog was well looked after when caught by Mr. M'Guire Mr. Treadwell contended that there was no caso to answer It was essential that the prosecution should provo mens rea and they had failed to do so. His "Worship concurred in this view m. (lismipsw > 'no information. Iho second charge was then taken The evidence for tho prosecution was practically the same as in the first ca.se Defendant in evidence stated- that ho had been spending, roughly, 18s.'a month to feed threo dogs up till the middle of June. After that, ho was out cf town for a fortnight, and the butcher stopped delivering meat for some unknown reason Defendant did not think, however, that the dog would live, as ho gave it eight grains of morphia on somo meat, and as tho moat disappeared he imagined tho dog had taken it. The fact that tho ropo was round it would have something to do with it's poor condition. Defendant ha/1 given instructions for tho dogs to bo well fed, as they were bred to sell. Another witness stated that late in Juno ho had seen tho dog with other dogs feeding in his backyard, and it then was in good condition. His Worship also dismissed this information on tho sanio grounds as in tho previjus case.