POISONING OF DOGS

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20986, 14 October 1933, Page 9

POISONING OF DOGS

TO TOE EDITOB OF THE PEESS Sir,—lf I know the dog poisoner, am I guilty of an offence if I do not lay an information, or if knowing him, am I liable for damages if I inform the police and the prosecution fails?-Yours, etc., October 12, 1933. [Mr D. J. Cummings, Superintendent of Police, to whom this letter was referred, said the answer to both questions was "No." He added that it was the duty of any citizen who knew the culprit in such a case to inform the police. The information would be treated in confidence if the informant so desired.]

TO TUB EDITOB OF TUB PEESS. Sir,—Your correspondent, Mrs Houston, thinks it is quite all right to poison rabbits, but not dogs. Why? Do rabbits suffer less when poisoned than dogs? I think not, and they are not more of a pest than many dogs are. At least they do not disturb our rest or destroy our pets. As for appealing to the law to stop the nuisance of barking dogs, _ I wonder if Mrs Houston has ever tried it?-Yours, etc.. CONTROL . Ashburton, October 13, 1933.

TO TIIB EDITOR Oi' THE I'BESS. Sir—Referring to the recent wholesale poisoning, of dogs by poisoned meat, etc., my society has been written to, asking us to make an appeal by the courtesy of your paper to au animal lovers to subscribe to a fund to our society, the fund to be used as a "reward fund" fia.n which we can offer amounts of money to anyone who will inform us of the name and address of animal-poisoning fiends. My- committee asks that you will kindly launch this public appeal for us. We have no funds to draw upon to offer any reward ourselves, or would willingly do so. If your office would be so kind, perhaps subscribers would leave their donations with "The Press." If you will kindly help our dumb friends in this way, I am sure you will have the gratitude of thousands of your readers.—Yours, etc., ROBERT RETALLICK, Hon. Secretary, the Humanitarian and Anti-vivisection Society of N.Z. (Inc.). October 13, 1933.