UNUSUAL COURT CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 6 February 1926, Page 2

UNUSUAL COURT CASE

THE NEIGHBOUR’S CAT, 'Hie point whether striking a cat on the bead with a stick is cruelty to ananimal was settled in the ‘Magistrate’s* Court, Palmerston North, by Air J. L. Stout, S.AL, when George Fairey, a. lad, was charged with cruelty to a cat. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and was represented by Air H. R. Cooper. Frederick George Towler, jockey, stated that he lived in dose proximity to defendant, and on December 22nd witness saw Fairey striking a cat which belonged to his mother. Fairey struck the cat on the head several times, reducing it to pulp. AVrtliess* called out to defendant, who remarked! that he was “killing your cat” because it had killed his pigeons. AVitness considered that if the animal was to* have been destroyed it should haver been poisoned or shot. Jl was just an ordinary eat. To ALr Cooper, witness stated that, he did not know that defendant had! warned his mother about tW cat destroying his pigeons. Airs 12. Towler, owner of the eat and mother of the- previous witness, stated she had seen Fairey striking: the cat, and had called out to bason. The beating of the cat continued lor some time. Witness admitted that Fairey had asked her to get rid of the cat once. NATURAL ENEMIES. The Alagistrate: People have a right to keep a domestic cat. Air Cooper; But not if they destroy valuable birds. The Alagistrate: Tt is quite natural for a cat to kill birds, otherwise it would menu killing all the cats in the borough. Air Cooper: If a dog kills a sheep it has to lie destroyed, so if a cat kills valuable pigeons, it should also be destroyed. All- Cooper to witness: The pigeons were valuable ones?— No more valuable than the cat was to me. For the defence, Air Cooper stated that the pigeons were valuable birds, some posting £5 and £6 each. Remains of birds had been found previously, and there was no doubt that tills cat was responsible. On the day undei review, defendant had found the eat in the pigeon-house; and after he and his father had secured the animal with a noose of wire round its neck, defendant had struck the cat on the:

head. Defendant stated in evidence that he had told Mrs Towler about the cat, hut on December 22nd he heard a “squeaker.” and on going into the? pi«oon loft lie found the eat there. He* and his father secured the animal, and witness struck it four or five blows on the head. Cnder cross-examination he snm that he had taken precautions to keep eats out of the house. _ . The Magistrate in dismissing the ease stated that the only question was whether the method employed to kill the cat was unnecessary cruelty. The cat would undoubtedly have been stunned by the first blow and so was not in agony. He did not think.unnecessary cruelty had been inflicted.