Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before Mr J. S. Evans,. S.M.) ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A DOG. At the Magistrate's Court to-day, Mary Morrison was charged-with, having on August 27th cruelly ill-treated a.dog, the property of Henry Caines, Iby throwing hot water on it.. Mr A. C. Masrinnity appeared for the .Society for'the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the informant.' • v ,:'•• ;.; Defendant, who pleaded not guilty, was defended toy- Mr "Hayes. • ; Henry Francis West, chemist, and Inspector for the .Nelson: Branch of the Society for- the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, stated that the dog was, brought to him on the 28th August, hayjhg been scalded. The skin was off the spot, which was raw, and the dog appeared to be in pain. It did not necessarily heed boiling water to scald a dog, as dogs scalded very, easily. ... Henry Caines, City Council employee, said that on Saturday, August 27 j he heard his spaniel dog howling, and found that it had been scalded. Defendant said she had thrown-hot water .over the do,?, and that it was a nuisance. He ■arid; defendant were neighbours. He told :dej-;' fendant that if she had complained about" the dog he would have kept it chained, up. ; . .■■;"; Cross-examined : Defendant told' him at once that she had thrown, hot water ; on the dog. He put oil on the scald at once, 'but did not take the dog to the chemist's till 7 o'clock on the Monday evenine. To Mr Maginnity : He had hot. much opportunity of taking the dogto. •''thV chemist's before the Monday evening. - Caines. living ; with his father said that about 11 o'clock on. the Sunday morning he saw defendant' throw a bowl of water over the dog, which came away yelping. The ,dog was. in defendant'syard<; and defendant was also in 'the yard When she" threw the water. . ' Cross-examined : The dog was getting a bone out of defendant's yard. He did riot know the dog was a nuisance V.to defendant. V _ ' - ."•'■'■"'"• • Constable Wade stated that he saw the dog on August 31st. There was a patch: as big as the back' of his hand, which, was 'bare and tender. '■ ■* 'l*-

Mr Hayes submitted that there Tya?' no case to answer, but the Magistrate ruled that there was.' Mary Morrison. the* defendant, in : evidence, stated that the dog had been quite an annoyance even' since the water .was thrown.: The moment it. was off the-' chain the do,g came into her yard; She drove the dog out/continually"by chasing. She had no objection to. dogs, but was fond of dogs and animals .-generallyi" thouorh shefwas not particularly; fond', of the doffin question. On the Sunday she had a- tray of soap \in- the' yard; drying,and the dog committed a nuisance on' the soap. She had a cup of water in her hand, and from the passage threw rt on the dog. She had. no intentioii of in>juring "the dog. She did not think the water was boiling. ■'•

Cross-examined: Graham C ! ainesi could not possibly have seen her' throvv the water.. She was, going to use the water to clean her teeth, so it. could not have 'been boiling water.. She had rot complained to Mr Caines about the oogC as she did not want to have words ; I nib' Mr Caines must have known the rl-j'i \-as a nuisance. '

The Magistrate said that he had r <jt looked tip-the Act before, 'taking it fojrgranted that it was a matter of a. n < r.etary nenalty, but it .appeared tl at the penalty under the section of tiie-Art "• as six months'' imprisonment,'and i" 4 oFpnr7r" fc had the being tried by a jury/ This option must be given before the hearing, and not after it, rnd as tliis had not been done, the case could inot go on, and would be struck out. ;'

JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

In the judgment summons case Edward Sears v. Henry Cooper (amamt £5 2s 6d), judgment debtor, examined by. Mr Sainsbury, stated that since thet'ste" of the judgment (August Ist) he : .' aif not averaged £2 10s a week. lie <"-as ff veterinary surgeon,' and- had only l •• d aj few cases to'attend to lately. During tlifc past six months he had had three rvrl eir ribs, had poisoned • his hand twice, rnd had also had a poisoned foot. lie had .a wife and four children to keep ;;: No order was ma'de.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NEM19160929.2.31

Bibliographic details

Nelson Evening Mail, 29 September 1916, Page 4

Word Count
725

MAGISTRATE'S COURT Nelson Evening Mail, 29 September 1916, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT Nelson Evening Mail, 29 September 1916, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert