EKETAHUNA

Wairarapa Times-Age, 26 October 1940, Page 9

EKETAHUNA

SHOOTING OF DOG DEFENDANT FINED. ("Times-Age” Special.) A case of interest to farmers and owners of house dogs was heard at the special sitting of the S.M. Court on Thursday before Mr H. P. Lawry when David Henry Butcher was charged that he did cruelly ill-treat an animal. a Scottish Terrier dog, by shooting at and wounding it. Constable McCowan prosecuted, and in outlining the case said defendant' had found the dog among some sheep on his property and had procured a rifle and shot at the animal, wounding it. Defendant, it was alleged, did not make a sufficient examination of the animal to make sure that it was not. suffering. A veterinary surgeon and a doctor were of the opinion that the animal had suffered considerable pain. George Leslie stated that he found the dog at approximately 9.20 a.m., on his lawn. He had heard the sound of a shot at about 8.40 a.m. He washed the dog’s head and had then notified the owner of the dog, Mr Duflill. Walter Charles Duflill said that on September 10, on receiving information that his dog had been shot he had gone to Mr Leslie’s residence and had found the dog lying on a sack on the lawn. It was conscious. He had taken the dog to Dr. Simmers who examined it. He then notified the police. He, in company with Constable McCowan, had visited defendant later in the morning. Butcher had told the police that he had seen the dog bothering some sheep and had admitted shooting the dog. Defendant had not mentioned any damage being done to the sheep. He had never received any warning from Butcher about the dog being on his property. To Mr Parsons witness stated that the dog died the following day. To Constable McCowan witness said that Mr F. Olsen had never complained to him about the dog. Constable’McCowan said that he had received a complaint from Duflill of the shooting. He had seen the dog. The bullet had entered near the centre of the forehead and had come out at the left temple. On being interviewed defendant had quite freely admitted the shooting and had said that he believed it to be dead. To Mr Parsons: The injuries received would be almost certain to stun the dog. To assume that the animal was dead was not sufficient. The onus was on defendant to make certain the dog was dead. In opening the case for the defence Mr Parsons said that on the day in question defendant had seen a dog running after and making dives at some ewes and lambs on his property on the Alfredton Road. He had gone over to Mr Olsen's residence and procured a rifle and had shot the dog. It had fallen into a swamp and defendant had pulled it out and examined it to make sure it was dead. He had the dog under observation for about 25 minutes from the time he had dragged it from the swamp and it-had not moved. David Henry Butcher described how he noticed the dog running and making dives at a number of ewes and lambs. He formed the opinion that it was attacking the sheep and he went over to Cisen’s and secured a rifle. On his return the dog was still running at the sheep and when about four chains off he shot the dog which rolled into the creek. He had dragged it out and he was of the opinion that the dog was dead. He then walked along the swamp and he put in 25 minutes in the vicinity before returning the rifle. During that time the dog showed no signs of j life and he reasonably assumed that it was dead. The Magistrate, in imposing a penalty of £5 Is with 10s costs, said that the defendant had every right to destroy dogs that were molesting his sheep. I' was evident to him, however, that defendant did not make sure that the animal was dead. Personal Items. Mr R. Hornblow, of the local staff of the Bank of Now South Wales, has been transferred to Masterton. Mr and Mrs P. Bouzaid are spending the weekend at Foxton.