CRUELTY TO DOGS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XI, Issue 53, 16 February 1921, Page 5

CRUELTY TO DOGS.

TIED UP WITHOUT FOOD. A BAD CASE AT LONGLANDS. At the Hastings Court house this morning, before Mr. R. W. Dyer, S.M., Walter Marquant was charged with, on February 2nd, illtreating five dogs by not providing them with sufficient food and water. Harold Marquant and William Anderson were similarly charged. Defendants pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Hogan conducted the prosecution, and Mr. 11. Holderness defended the two Marquants. Anderson was undefended. Constable Brenchly deposed that he visited defendant ’s property at Longlands. Ho saw four dogs tied in a pigstye, on Marquant’s property. They were not able to stand on their feet and their skin seemed be stretched over their bones, which seemed to be coming through. He found another dog in a similar condition. Marquant said An derson had left the dogs there to be fed by Marquant's son, with food supplied by Anderson. A horse was killed for food. The Marquants denied responsibility. They said that the boy told Anderson that there was no food for the dogs, as the horse meat had given out. Witness told Anderson to destroy the dogs, but he demurred, saying that there was £7 worth there. lie ultimately destroyed one. Anderson admitted that young Marquant told him the dogs had no food.

Alfred John Ward gave corroborative evidence. The dogs could get water if they were loose. Things were bo bad that he informed the police. Walter Marquant, one of the defendants, deposed that the dogs were placed on his property about December 23rd. He was to have no responsibility. He told Anderson he had no time to feed them and that he (Anderson) must undertake that. Witness supplied no feed, but he knew that the dogs had the carcases of a calf and a horse. The owner brought the horse. The dogs had been left off the chain once or twice. He asked his son if he arranged to feed the dogs, but he could get nothing definite from him. He told witness that he promised to “help Anderson all he could.” Witness’s son had a bad memory, since he had had a fall from a horse. Witness knew the dogs were there, but he was very busy and ho overlooked them.

Harold Marquant (aged 17), another defendant, deposed that Anderson was responsible for the food supply. When the food was exhausted he told Ander son. He killed a calf for food and he gave them other food. He fed them while the carcase of the horse lasted. He let the dogs loose twice a day but on the day Constable Brenchley visited the place he did not let them off the chain, as he. had to go to work early. They were tied up in the stye in wet weather and on the river bank in dry weather. For five or six days they had no food, but they had water. He told his father the dogs had no food and he told witness to see Anderson. William Anderson, in his evidence, said Marquant. gave him permission to leave the dogs, the boy agreeing to feed them, if witness supplied the food. This he did to the best of his ability. The boy told him the dogs were short of food on three occasions. Mrs. Anderson, mother of last wit ness, also gave evidence. Hir Worship said the dogs had been shamefully neglected. Ho would dismiss the case against the youth, Harold Marquant. In the case of Walter Marquant, he had been careless. Although ho had not wilfully starved the dogs, he had not, on the other hand, gone out of his way to remedy the negject of An derson to supply food. He considered that Anderson bad been abominably cruel. He was greatly at fault and he (His Worship'! did not remember hear ing of a worse case. The charge against Harold Marquant would be dismissed. Walter Marquant would be fined £1 and 9/6 costs, and William Anderson would fined £lO and costs 9/6, or a month’s imprisonment.