CATS NOT PROTECTED

Evening Star, Issue 22262, 13 February 1936, Page 2

CATS NOT PROTECTED

THE REGISTRATION ACT (Per Unites Press Association.] WELLINGTON, February 12. . “I am unable to find that a cat is an animal within the meaning of the Dog Registration Act, and will dismiss the information,” said Mr J. H. Luxford, when delivering judgment in the Wellington Magistrate’s Court _in a case in which Constance Morice, a single woman, was charged with being the owner of a dog which attacked acat and injured it on a public highway. The defendant was charged with a breach of section 24 of the Dog Registration Act, 1908, which imposes a penalty of £5 on the owner of a dog if the dog on any highway or any unenclosed place rushes at, attacks, or startles any person or any horse, cattle, or other animal whereby the life or limbs of ally person are endangered or any property is injured or endangered. . _ It is clear that the Legislature, did not intend all animals to come within section 24,” said the magistrate. “In my'opinion the animals, protected are those which usually are used or driven along a public highway or are held in an unenclosed place. All beasts of burden are of the same genus as horses, while sheep, pigs, or goats are of the same genus as cattle. None of them are able effectively to protect themselves against attack bv a dog except by flight, and flight,would of itself endanger, them or the users of a highway. Generally speaking, a dog does not attack a horse or cow or sheep on sight. That only happens occasionally. When it does happen on a nubile highway or in an unenclosed place a may be killed or its owner prosecuted. A strange cat, on the other hand, invariably is attacked on sight by a dog, but seldom does any harm befall the cat or anything else. That in itself is the distinguishing feature between the two species of animals, and denies the common genus necessary to bring a cat within the section.”