NO FOOD OR SHELTER

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 256, 25 July 1936, Page 4

NO FOOD OR SHELTER

Plight of Neglected Dog

OWNER BEFORE COURT How the dog in question used to bowl up and down Rolleston Street at night in search of food and shelter was related by witnesses in the Magistrate's Court, Wellington, yesterday, when James William Stewart, of the Northland fire station was charged with omitting to supply an English setter female dog with proper and sufficient food, water aud shelter. He was fined £2/10/- and costs by Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M. The information was laid by the inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Mr. R. A. Nicol, who was represented by Mr. T. P. McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy said the original informations covered a series of dates, but all but one were excluded by a time bar. Mr. Nieol said he first went to Stewart's house in May. 1935. The dog was fastened to the bac fence, and was lying on the wet ground with only a sheet of roof iron over its head for shelter. The dog was very thin and was so hungry that on being released it ran to the water sump and tried to lick the grease. On April 7, 1936, when Stewart was living at Tanera Crescent, witness found the dog again in Rolleston Street, smothered in fleas and very dirty. He took it to the corporation yards. On April 22 he received further complaints that the dog was again frequenting Rolleston Street. Two residents of Rolleston Street gave evidence that they had seen the dog wandering the streets ferociously hungry, and that they had fed it. One witness said that on cold and stormy nights he had seen the dog sleeping on the seat, of a motor-lorry which used to stand in the street. Another said the dog was so hungry that he had taken pity and bought food for it. In the witness box, Stewart said he did not have charge of the dog. After his talk with Mr. Nicol he had obtained a kennel, but the dog refused to sleep in it. He denied that, the dog was short of food, as one of his relations was a butcher and used to supply bones. Witness said he thought one of the residents of Rolleston Street was keeping the dog, because he had sometimes met him with the dog. , “I am quite satisfied that the dog has been neglected in the manner alleged,” said the magistrate. Stewart might have been under the impression that it was in comfortable surroundings and that the people with whom he left it were looking after it. but there was au obligation on him as .owner of the dog to see that that was so.