WARNING TO FARMERS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 262, 15 November 1928, Page 4

WARNING TO FARMERS.

THE DOG NUISANCE. A Magistrate’s Strictures. The common practice of many farmers of rubbing turpentine or other irritant on stray dogs which make themselves a nuisance in order to keep them away from their properties, is “one which may land them in trouble and is certainly not viewed with favour by Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M. Hearing a case on Friday, in the Putaruru Court, Mr. Paterson, at its conclusion, decided that “intent” was proved and inflicted a fine of £5. The case was one in which Thomas Jones, of Overdale, was charged by the police with causing the death of a dog owned by Henry Keen. Mr. Keen stated that his dog went away for a time and then came back. The dog died ten or twelve days afterwards; Mr. Jones told him frankly that he had handled the dog, and but for him speaking he would not have known where it had been. Witness admitted his dog was not tied up and that once before the dog had come home with a rabbit trap on its foot. Jones’ place was four miles from Putaruru. Witness also described the symptoms surrounding the dog’s death.

Thomas Lawrence, chemist, stated he treated the dog. A styptic pencil would not cause death. Such a pencil was largely composed of alum, and was used on the face. It was astringent, while a caustic pencil would bum. Witness admitted he did not know much about pollard poisoning. Constable Cotter stated that following a ring from Keen he had seen the dead dog. Jones was quite open about it, but said what he had done would not have caused death. He had heard of turpentine being rubbed on dogs and also tin-eans being tied to their tails. (Laughter). To Mr. Bell, witness stated Jones had told him he used the caustic pencil he shaved with. Mr. G. G. Bell, who appeared for defendant, then applied for a nonsuit as no proof of caustic having been used had been supplied by the police. The word caustic was plainly misused, as a styptic pencil contained no caustic.

Defendant theft gaye, his story,

stating that he .had suffered great annoyance through dogs eating turkey and other eggs. He caught the ddg in the act, and took it in the house, and as their happened; to no turpentine, he rubbed his''spying pencil on him. He did not. want to do the-dog any harm, but just to keep him away from the farm. It was the ordinary pencil he used on his own [face. He had no caustic on the farm. The Magistrate: You intended to cause it pain? Defendant: Yes; but hot bodily harm. - H, A. Lopdell stated He had been a rabbit inspector in Hawke’s for 16 years. From the evidence, he maintained the dog had died from pollard poisoning. Dogs would die after eating dead rabbits which had taken the bait. Phosphorus retained its strength for two or three months, provided it was not weakened by the weather. The main stomach of a rabbit went black and hard after being poisoned with phosphorus. The intestines became inflamed. He had known about twelve dogs die from phosphorus poisoning. James Hector Blain, inspector to the Tokoroa Rabbit Board, which controlled some 60,000 acres, stated he was quite definite in his opinion that the dog died from phosphorus poisoning. Treating dogs with turpentine and such-like irritants was quite common amongst farmers.

Do you suggest that applying turpentine does not amount to cruelty ? —Yes; it simply causes a temporary irritation and does not harm the membranes in any way. Mr. Bell held- that the evidence did riot disclose cruelty.

Mr. Bell: I suggest, sir, in view of the police statement of defendant’s standing and the fact that he volunteered a statement of what' he had done, and was quite open about the whole thing, that yoti should consider whether a conviction should be entered. The Magistrate: If a man,, takes the illegal Way that’s his fault.', Mr. Bell: If he had taken the dog and given it a severe thrashing, would you suggest^cruelty? The Magistrate: That depends on the extent of the thrashing. Continuing, the Magistrate stated he had no doubt. The defendant.admitted he intended to hurt the dbg sufficiently to keep it away from the place.' If a dog trespasses there was | a proper remedy through the courts. I In his opinion applying turpentine I also amounted to cruelty.