CARE OF A DOG

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 100, 30 April 1938, Page 7

CARE OF A DOG

CRUELTY ALLEGED

DISMISSAL OF CHARGE

The treatment oE a St. Bernard dog when it was boarded at the defendant's kennels formed the subject of a charge in the Lower Hutt Court on Thursday against W. J. Russell, Bridge Street, Lower Hutt," of cruelly ill-treating the dog by omitting to render it sufficient care and attention and by omitting to supply it with proper and sufficient food. Mr. H. P. Lawry, S.M., was on the bench.

Mr. H. F. Bollard appeared for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Mr. A. J. Mazengarb, defending, entering a plea of not guilty. Alfred Raymond McElwain, advertising manager for the Fuller-Hayward Corporation, said that when he bought the dog it weighed between nine and ten stone, and continued to put on weight. He fed the dog on three pounds of meat daily, bones, vegetables, and up to two pounds of dog biscuits. When Russell took charge of the dog it weighed about 1601b. The defendant had the dog from about a week before Christmas until the end of February.

On February 28, said the witness, he was told that the dog had developed an. ulcer, lost a little weight, and would require attention. The dog was sent to Mr. Webb's dog hospital on the suggestion of the defendant.

' When he went to Mr. Webb's the dog was practically unrecognisable, said the witness. It was shockingly emaciated; every bone was showing through the skin; it was bleeding at the joints and the ears looked as if they had been eaten by something. The dog was only'just able to stand up; it could not lift its head nor could it recognise him. He described the dog at the time as a "canine leper." The defendant, who was very uncommunicative and put out, said that the dog was not like that when he took it to Mr. Webb's. It was afterwards taken away by Mr. Nicol and some time later destroyed.

Thomas Charles Webb, veterinaryadviser, said that he first heard abbut the dog on February 26 when the defendant rang to say that it had a lump on its side. He told the defendant what to do and later advice was received that what was described to him as an abscess had burst. The dog was brought to witness's dog hospital on February 28. It was emaciated and he would say it was suffering from malnutrition. The ears were, sore and the joints of the legs sore as'though the dog had been lying for a long time on a hard surface. The sore on the side was a cyst. Mr. Russell and his partner said that the dog's condition was due to its being attacked by a terrier. The defendant said that the whole trouble happened in a week and the dog would not eat* In reply to questions "by the Magistrate and Mr. Mazengarb, the witness stated that the defendant seemed very concerned about the dog. The cyst, winch, was not internal, had nothing to do with the dog's death.

In reply to Mr. Bollard; the witness said that if the dog had an abscess forming €or a week and during that period was off its food it cquld not lose 801b during the week. It would, take at least three to four weeks for the dog to lose that weight.

Inspector R. A. Nicol said that the dog was only a few days at Mr. Webb's and when he weighed it the weight was 791b. In the few days it was at Mr. Webb's it-was feeding better. and was firmer op its legs. When the dog was ■in witness's care it ate ravenously. .'.The sores healed up, but the dog was in such poor condition that fresh ones kept breaking out.. Eventually it was decided •to destroy the dog because of its condition.

The Magistrate asked the inspector what his object was in putting in photographs all showing the wound if this was not the cause of the dog's condition and did not cause suffering. Was he trying to- hoodwink him?

The inspector replied that he considered the dog's condition was due to lack of food and exercise.

Mr. Bollard said he wished most respectfully to enter his objection to the Magistrate's remark that attempts were made to hoodwink him. It was his (counsel's) responsibility- that the photographs were put in.

The defendant said that until recently he kept boarding kennels, but had ceased to do so as the Borough Council had objected to them 'and his work took him to town. The dog was in fair condition when he got it and he used liniment on it night and morning because of stiffness in the leg. He fed the dog on five to six pounds of meat a day and gave it an hour's exercise every morning 'and evening. On February 21 the dog became feverish and sometimes he was up till midnight with it. When he observed the lump he rang Mr. Webb and the abscess broke two days later. * '

. Alexander McNeil, carrier and contractor, said that he took the dog for exercise, which included swimming. The dog lost weight rapidly and within a week was pitiful to look at. The Magistrate said it was admitted by the defendant and McNeil that the dog had lost rapidly in -weight, but this did not imply cruelty or improper or underfeeding. Mr. Webb had said that the wound, once cleaned and dressed, would not cause much suffering. ' Once the defendant knew of the wound he took the dog to have further treatment. Nothing had been established that the defendant had ill-treated the dog through cruelty, neglect, or by not giving it sufficient food. The charge would be dismissed.