CRUELTY CHARGE DISMISSED

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 181, 29 April 1938, Page 7

CRUELTY CHARGE DISMISSED

Magistrate’s Remarks To S.P.C.A- Inspector

“YOU ARE TRYING TO ’ HOODWINK ME”

A statement that the inspector of the Wellington Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was trying to “put it across him” and hoodwink him by producing photographs of a dog with a huge wound in its side with the object of making him think it had something to do with the dog being starved, whereas one of the society’s own witnesses had stated that the wound, which was caused by an abscess, had nothing to do with the dog losing weight, was made by Mr. 11. P. Lawrj\ S.M., in the Magistrates’ Court, Lower Hutt, yesterday, during a prosecution for cruelty to a dog. The society’s inspector, Mr. JI. A. Nicol, was giving evidence at the time the magistrate made his observations, ajid had referred to the photographs in support of his testimony. Defendant was W. J. Russell, Bridge Street, Lower Hutt, who was charged on Mr. Nicol’s information with cruelly illtreating a St. Bernard dog belonging to Alfred Raymond McElwain, advertising manager, Fuller-Hayward Corporation, Wellington, by failing to give insufficient caret and attention and by failing to supply it with proper and sufficient thereby causing it unnecessary suffering. The charge was dismissed. Mr. H. FBollard appeared for the society anfl Mr. A. J. Mazengarb for Russell, who formerly kept a dogs’ boarding establishment.

In evidence McElwain said he bought the dog when it was five mouths old and nine to ten stone in weight. It continued to put on weight. The dog was in splendid condition when he gave it to Russell just before Christmas. It had had rheumatic or tendon trouble but this had been successfully treated. He fed the dog on three pounds of meat daily, bones, vegetables and up to two pounds of dog biscuits. When Russell took the dog it was around IGO pounds. The fee was 12/6 a week and he paid £2 in advance. On February 28 he got into touch with Russell, who had telephoned him on February 26, and was told that the dog had developed an ulcer, lost a little weight and would require attention. On Russell’s suggestion the dog was then sent to Webb's dog hospital. "Shockingly Emaciated.”

When he saw the dog it was practically unrecognisable. It was .shockingly emaciated; every bone was sticking through the skin. It was bleeding at the joint of every leg, it was covered in sores and its cars appeared to have, been eaten by something. He described it then as looking like a canine leper. There was a bandage around the dog which Webb dul not want to disturb. Webb said it had developed an ulcer; Russell was “put out” and uncommunicative. Going home Russell said the dog was "not at all like that” when be took it there. Russell wauted to take it back to bis place but he told him the dog could not stand journeying in its Condition and to leave it at Webb’s. He then rang .Mr. Nicol, who took the dog to His home. Later it was destroyed. Thomas Webb, veterinary adviser, said that when he received the dog from Russell on February 28 it was in a terribly emaciated condition; he believed it to be due to malnutrition. It also bad some sort of eczema; Russell said that bot flies caused this, but he did not agree. The joints were "bedsore” from lying down for a considerable time. The dog had a cyst which burst and was treated by him. Russell and McNeil, his partner, said the whole condition was due to the St. Bernard having been attacked by a terrier. They said that its condition had all come about in a week; this was impossible. It would take four weeks at least unless the dog had distemper badly. The condition was disgraceful. The magistrate said malnutrition was not starvation.

Webb said the dog bad been underfed. Tlie first feed he gave the dog it ate well, and did tlie same thereafter. In his opinion there was no connection between the sore on the dog’s side and its loss of weight. It could hardly walk when, he got it from Russell, who said to spare no expense to get the dog back to condition. He told Russell then there, was a poor chance of recovery. Cross-examined. Webb said that Russell was most concerned about the dog. Russell certainly said to spare no expense, but be believed he said this because he was’ in a fix. To the magistrate, Webb said the dog did not die from the cyst. . Inspector’s Version. Inspector Nicol said be took the dog from Webb’s ou .March 2, and weighed it a few days later; it was then 79 pounds. When he took the dog from Webb’s it was eating belter and was more steady on its. legs than when be first saw it there. The dog ate ravenously when at his place. He tried to reinedy its sores, but. as some were cured others developed. The magistrate: With all the care of Mr. Webb and yourself you could not cure’ it.

Nicol replied that the dog was in shockingly poor condition., It would have taken months to get it to pick up, and it would be an expensive business. After consultation with McElwain, it was decided to destroy the dog. When interviewed Russell told him he did not know the dog had the ulcer until he was informed by Mrs. McNeill on February 26; Russell treated the ulcer that afternoon, and it burst. The magistrate at this stage referred to the photographs produced by the prosecution showing the condition of the dog some time before it was handed over to Russell and its state when it was seen by McElwain two months later. The latter photographs sbpwcd the dog to ’be thin, with a large, open wound on its body and skin trouble on its ears.

'l’he magistrate said to Nicol: •‘loti have brought a man here on a criminal charge and produced these photographs in •support. You are trying t,o put. it across me—to hoodwink me —-by producing these photographs showing this great wound in the dog. What is your object if not to make me think that the dog was starving and suffering? Yet on the evidence of your own witness, Mr. Webb, this abscess wound had nothing t 0 do with the case. If Mr. Webb’s evidence is unreliable, 1 don’t want it; if it is reliable, then it shows that Russell definitely tried to do something for the dog by consulting Mr. Webb about the abscess, following his instructions and later handing the dog over to him for veterinary attention with instructions to spare no expense.” Mr. Bollard said that he wished, with respect, to object Io these remarks. As counsel, he was responsible for having the photographs'put in. The magistrate: You may have been influenced by them as it was intended I should be. Mr. Bollard: 1 trust your worship is not suggesting that I was trying to hoodwink the court? The magistrate: No; I would take a different attitude if I thought that counsel was a party to it. He was satisfied the dog had been going back in condition for weeks through starvation and lack of exercise, said Nicol. The magistrate: Is lack of exercise cruelty under the statute? —“Yes, with a big dog like that.” He was a dog breeder and fancier and until recently kept boarding kennels, said Russell. He gave up tne kennels because he was working in the city and also because the borough council objected. The dog was in fair condition when he get it. He fed him five to six pounds of meat a day and it had an hour’s daily exercise, lorning and night. On February 21 the

dog got out of sorts and he fed him with beef tea and egg, sometimes staying up until after midnight to do so. When the abscess developed he tried to get the touch with MeEhVain. He telephoned Webb for advice and followed it. From February 21 the dog rapidly lost weight. When he got. it. its weight was around 100 pounds. Under his care the dog went up to 130 or 140 jiouuds. Percy William Willson, ranger, Wellington Acclimatisation Society, said be ha I bred dogs for 25 If a dog had an abscess and was in pain it would lose weight. He had seen dogs lose much weight in a week. To Mr. Bollard, Willson said a dog would not lose 60 pounds in a. wbek. He had seen dogs go down to a skeleton iu a week from influenza.

Alexander R. McNeill, carrier-contrac-tor, said Russell’s hounds had been at his place and he looked after the dogs in February. At the end of January the saint Bernard's condition was fairly good. He exercised it and it was a favourite of his —in fact, he sometimes gave it some extra meat, more than the other boarders. The evidence before the court was that once Russell knew of the abscess ou the dog he got the advice of Webb, who seemed to be well thought of iu regard to the care of dogs, said the magistrate. Afterward he took the dog to Webb for treatment. There was evidence that Russell gave up time so that he could personally supervise the treatment of the dog. Ou McNeill’s evidence so fur from being deprived of food the dog was, because of his having taken a fancy to it, given more. There was nothing to establish that Russell had ill-treated the dog or not given it sufficient food. The case would be dismissed.

Mr. Mazengarb said he would not ask for his solicitor’s fee as he was himself one of the society's honorary solicitors.

The work of Cr. W. 11. Edwards as borough representative on the Wellington Free Ambulance committee was referred to by Cr. G. London at the meeting of the Petone Borough Council last night. Cr. London said Cr. Edwards had kept the council minutely informed of the work, and had been a conscientious collector for the ambulance in the borough. Other councillors endorsed these remarks.