Man barred from owning animals for two years

Press, 30 April 1982, Page 5

Man barred from owning animals for two years

Greymouth reporter A man was barred from owning any animals for two years by Judge McAloon in the District Court at Greymouth, after his second conviction in 14 months for failing to provide sufficient food and water for dogs. Wayne Charles Trevathan, aged 30, an unemployed labourer, of Westport (Mr S. J. Hembrow), had denied the second charge, alleged to have occurred between Janu-' ary 22 and January 29 at Takutai, south Hokitika. Muriel Gladys Berwick, a neighbour of Trevathan’s, said that he and his family had apparently gone on holiday, as she had noticed the dogs had been left behind, one on a chain and one inside the house. She had fed them and given them water because she felt it was a duty not to let them starve. The dog inside had been fed through a hole in the door. The defendant was absent for about a week. She had

seen no-one else feed the dogs. To Mr Hembrow, she said that she was aware that there was food inside the house for rhe dog there, but the one outside appeared thin. Keith Sheard, a hydatids control officer, said he had been asked by the police to examine the dogs. He found one, a collie-cross in poor condition chained in the yard, and he saw a Corgi in relatively good condition inside the house. Through the window he could see that the dog inside had defecated in several places on the floor, and there were indications that it had no water. The witness said he had fed both dogs. Constable S. P. Dawson said that the chained dog had had no food or water, and he saw the Corgi inside running loose. He made arrangements with Mrs Beswick to feed the dogs. Interviewed on February

1, the defendant had said that he left no-one in charge of the dogs as he did not think he would be away long. The defendant said he had gone to Blenheim, to Christchurch, back to Blenheim, to,Christchurch again anti then to Dunedin. To Mr Hembrow, the constable said he could not accept that food and water may have been left inside the house for the Corgi. Asked if the defendant's mother owned one of the dogs, Constable Dawson said she had been absent for several weeks, and the defendant was. left in charge. The defendant, in evidence, said he had been away for four days, returning home on January 26. When the hydatids control officer arrived on January 29, he must have been at work. Asked about the faeces seen on the floor on January 29, he said that they could have been present. It was not his job to clean the house, but his wife’s. He had left a

roll of pet tooti for the Corgi and a cooked piece of mutton , for the Collie, and he had a friend who was to keep an eye on them while he was absent. The Judge said that the defendant's evidence was “impossible to accept and a fabric of lies.” He could not accept that the family had lived in the house from January 26 to January 29, with eight to 10-day faeces on the floor. The defendant was convicted. “It was a callous and ' a cruel disregard for the ’. requirements of the animals,” said the Judge. "The situation would have been worse if it had not been for the actions of your neighbour in feeding the dogs,” he said. . The defendant was convicted and fined $l5O, ordered to pay witnesses’ expenses and barred, under , section 16 of the Animals Protection Act, from owning any animal for two years.