CAT KEPT IN BATH

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 190, 8 May 1937, Page 8

CAT KEPT IN BATH

Elderly Couple Fined For Cruelty LOW LIVING CONDITIONS “The opinion of this court is that you and your wife should not be allowed to keep animals at all,” said the magistrate, Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M., to an elderly man, who with his wife was charged with cruelly ill-treating a cat, which they were stated to have kept in a bath. Both defendants were convicted and each lined £1 and costs, and warned against keeping any further animals unless their standard of living greatly improved. Defendants, George and Edith Harris, were represented by Mr. R. Hardie Boys. Mr. C. H. Arndt appeared for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who brought, the prosecution. The society’s inspector, Mr. It. A. Nicol, visited the Harris’s house at Island Bay o n March 24, said Mr. Arndt. In the bath, which was covered with a piece of corrugated iron, he found a cat, sopping wet and apparently starving, and so weak it could hardly scramble out. The bottom of the bath was in a disgusting state. The cat. had to be destroyed, and also two others which were in the bathroom. While the inspector was there, said Mr. Arndt, Mrs. Harris appeared in an excited state, threatened to kill the inspector, and finally locked herself in her room. Mr. Nicol, in evidence, said that, he had visited the house as a result of telephone complaints from the neighbours. The cat in the bath was in a Shocking condition, and the others were also not very healthy. The human conditions were little better; the kitchen was in a disgusting state. The inspector gave evidence that the cats and dogs kept by defendants were not liouse-trained. “In fact, these people were, frankly, ‘pigging it’?” suggested Mr. Hardie Boys. “Well, the bathroom is no place to keep cats!” said Mr. Nicol. He added that he understood there were other cats secreted in Mrs. Harris’s bedroom, but he did not see them.

A boarder, 11. J. Frame, said that the cats fed off tables and shelves in the wash-house, which was used as a kitchenette. He had complained to the S.P.O.A. and to the sanitary inspector. Mr. Hardie Boys stated that defendants were not ordinary people. Neither was wholly coherent in speech. Their living conditions were appalling. But as far as the allegations of cruelty were concerned, both denied having put the cat into the bath. Someone else must have done so.

“It is a deplorable state of affairs. I cannot accept the proposition that some person deliberately did this,” said the magistrate. On hearing the decision, Harris asked if his wife could have a dog for her protection. “Can’t you look after her? Well, I suppose she can get herself a ‘lido,’ or whatever she wants. But remember, if you come before the court again for cruelty, you will not be dealt with so lightly,” said the magistrate.