MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 34, 4 November 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

FINE OF £5 IMPOSED

CRUELTY TO A DOG

Action was taken by tho Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals before Mr. E. Page, S.M., at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, against a young ninn named Charles Harris, who was charged with, cruelly ill-treating a dog. Mr. E. Kennedy, prosecuted on behalf of tho society, and Mr. P. W. Jackson represented tho defendant. The evidence in support of Iho charge was that on Simdav, September li, at , ,(< lastbourne, shots were heard, and a dog ' was heard to.yelp. Investigations show- ■ ed that the shots came from the defendant's property. \ Wallace B. D. MacPherson said he saw ' a dog in defendant's garoen moving v nbout on tho ground, and ho called out, "I say. cut that out." Ho noticed tho defendant endeavouring to bury the dog, which was still alive, and he said, "Why, man, you are burying it alive." Tho defendant was filling in the hole into .' Which tho <iog had fallen, but it man. aired to crawl out. The dog was bleeding, and appeared to bo suffering from n number' of wounds. The accused said in _ reply to witness's remarks that tho animal was stunned and could not feel anything. Four shots were fired altogether.

Tho defendant g;ive evidence on his own behalf.- antf said that tho dog was the property.of his brother's wife,-who died recently. The animal was a vicious one.-and at his brother's request he.undertook to destroy it. He fired, a.shot into the dog's head, but as this did not have the desired' effect he fired two more shots. The animal was dead when he proceeded to bury it. The fourth shot was fired into the ground. • To Mr. Kennedy: The cartridge -used was powerful enough for the bullet to penetrate the animal's head. He was certain,tho dog was dead when he proceeded to bury it. In recoi#-«» conviction, His Worship Raid that it was not a case of calculated cruelty, but an act committed probably m ignorance. Tho oefendant evidently thought tho dog would die after the first fdiot hit it, but it was inhuman to have left the animal in agony. A fine of •£5 and costs ,£3 15s. was imposed.

ALLEGED MEET AND FAILURE TO MAINTAIN. Charges of failing to provide his wife with adequate maintenance and of stealing at Carterton a kit of carpenter's tools, valued at £i, tho property of Herbert Griggs, were preferred'against Walter Stoning. Mr. G. J. Watson appeared for the defendant.

■ In regard to the charge of theft tho defenoant said that that had been dismissed, but Sub-Inspector Emerson state cd that the police had no information to this effect, and they were acting in accordance with instructions.

His Worship decided to adjourn the case of theft till to-day, in order to allow tho nolico time to make inquiries. Tho chargo of failure to provide adenunte maintenance was then proceeded with Mr. W. G. Mellish appearing for the complainant.

During the hearing of the evidence of the complainant the admissibility of certain evidenco was challenged, *nd the case was adjourned'till this morning. MAINTENANCE CASES. John Gordon, whose arrears in respect of a maintenance order amounted to .£fi 125.. was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, warrant to bo suspended ho long as current payments are maintained ana' S3, per week is paid off the arrears..

Frank M'Mahon, whose nrrearn amounted to '.£l7 lis. fid., was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, warrant to be' suspended so long as the current payments are maintained and ss. per week is paid off the arrears.

Hugh Muir admitted liability for £W 10s. arrears in respect of 'a- maintenance order in favour of his wife, but said that owing to illness he vonld not continue tho payments, and oesired a variation of the order. After hearing the evidence. Ifis Worship decided to remit the arrears, but refused the application for a variation, and ordered defendant to maintain the current payments of 30s; per week'. Mr. W. H. Webb appeared for the defendant, and Mr. P. W. JackBon for tlia complainant. OTHER PROSECUTIONS. I On a charge of creating a breach of the neace in Hopper Street hv fighting Richard Slattery and Charles Willis were I each fined .£3. For drunkenness Alexander Prinze was i fined £\. John AVynn. for a like offence, was fined 30'.. and for a third • breach of his prohibition order was finea' ' i' 3. in default seven days' imprisonment. Four first offenders y for drunkenness were each fined 10s.