SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13909, 7 December 1910, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

APPEAL SITTINGS.

(Before his Honour Mx Justice Sim.)

STEEL v. ZOUCH

This was an appeal, by way of rehearing, against the decision of Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., convicting Alexander Steel of cruelty to a dog. Mr T. G. Russell appeared for the appellant, and Mr J. J. Dougall for tho respondent.

Tho case for the respondent was that on October 13th last, the attention of W. H. Zouch, the Inspector for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, was called to the condition of a dog at Middleton. He examined the dog, and found one of its eyes bulging out, and the other eye driven into the head and burst. The animal's sight had been destroyed, and after two days tho animal itself was destroyed. The skull was fractured over tho left eye, but there was no bruise over the forehead towards the right eye. Zouch- was of opinion that the injury to that eye had been caused by a poke. Steel had told him that he had struck the dog because it was chasing his fowls. He could find no dead fowls, and none of the fowls in the yard appeared to be badly injured. Several witnesses gave evidence. The case for the defence was that on the morning of October 13th, Steel was awakened by a noise in his fowlhouse. Ho ran out, and on his wayio the fowlhouse picked up a stick. Ho saw a dog in the fowlrun, worrying his fowls. When he went into the fowlrun, the dog, was tearing at one of the fowls. The dog flew at him, and he struck tho animal on the head with tho stick. The dog fell, and after lying on tho ground for two seconds, got up and went from the fowlrun to the-fowlhouse. Four fowls were killed by the dog, and four others were so wounded that they had to*he destroyed. Tho ritick ho used was part of a broom handle.

Evidence was given by other witnesses that they had seen several dead fowls in Steel's place, and that others had been terribly torn about.

Mr Russell submitted that Steel struck the dog to protect his property and himself, and in doing that ho was not committing cruelty. His Honour said ho did not wish to hear Mr Dr.ugall. Looking at the nature of the injuries, it was quite lmpoesible to believe that they could have been inflicted in the way described by Steel. It was very difficult indeed to'believe that a dog «.f the _ kind, engaged in chasing fowls, would turn and attack Steel. Assuming, however, that it did attempt to attack him, Steel said that he struck it one blow only. Looking at the description given of the injuries, it was impossible to believe that they could have, been inflicted by one hlow. The ay£ a vr re ° f tho skllH and tne injury to the left eye could have been caused by ■M °?u r'T' I,u . fc jt %vas <l uite inipos?j v * th * ID J UI- y to *he right *ye could have been caused in that way. Mr Zouch thought that it had beei: done with a poke. His Honour said he thought that Steel went out and found the dog in the fowLyard, and madi> up his mind to punish tho animal He struck it over the head, and thon deliberately destroyed the sight of i!ie right eye. That seemed to him to be cruelly torturing the dog. The story bteel told about the damage'to'fowls was very different to that told by {ho inspector and another witness, nl : o lid not see any dead fowls at all, even though the Inspector a«ked for them The evidence given by Steel on this jpomt threw very serious doubts on Ins story. Tho only conclusion the Court could come to was that Steel had been deliberately and intentionally cruel to the dog. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction affirmed, with £7 7s costs against the appellant. « CHAMBER SITTING. A sitting in Chambers was held at IO.aO a.m: '• The Registrar's report was confirmed m re William Norman, deceased (Mr Hall), and remuneration was allowed accordingly. Tho Registrar's report was confirmed in- re John Barton Arundel Acland. deceased (Mr Wilding), and* an order made in terms of the motion. The Registrar's report was confirmed in re A. W. Money, deceased (Mr Ritchie), and remuneration allowed accordingly.

In the case Fisher (Mr Gresson) v. Matson (Mr Alpers), an order was made for inspection, and an order was made in terms of a summons for interrogatories;

In Patterson v. Patterson (Mr Dacre), an order was made appointing ,01ive Patterson, guardian ad litem of plaintiff. ' ■ ;

An order was made to remove Ihf case Davis (Mr Johnston) v. Duuicp Rubber Company (Mr Beswick), into the Supreme Court. An order authorising execution of leases was made on the application of Mr Beswick, in re Arthur Nattle Grigg, a minor. An order appointing a receiver was made in re Huston Curiett (Mr Cresswell). •

A petition to reduce the capital of Bowron Bros., and a motion to fix date of hearing of petition, and for directions, , was mentioned by Mr Russell, arid the hearing was fixed for Friday, Mr ; Russell stating that the necessary consent of shareholders would be filed prior to that date.