FORT CHALMERS POLICE. COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11191, 13 August 1898, Page 3

FORT CHALMERS POLICE. COURT.

'-" ' Friday, August 12. . (Before Captain W. Thomson and Mr W. Keid .;'..-" " '-J.P.'s.) .Cruelty to Animals.—Charles Georgeson wa? charged on the information of Constable Ever don with stabbing a dog with a knife on August i at Deborah Bay.—The defendant, who was re presented by Mr Platts, pleaded not guilty.— Constable Everdon deposed that on August 5 hi saw defendant striking a dog. . Witness callec. his attention to the cruelty of the act, and de fendant replied that the dog and another were fighting, and that he struck him with his knife 'to prevent more mischief.—Charlotte Hill, i; child of 11 years, stated that on August 5 sh( saw two large dogs on the Mansford Bay road. She saw Mr Georgeson stick a knife into one o: the dogs. The dog was bleeding greatly. Wit ness saw a knife in Mr Georgeson's haiid. Thi dogs were fighting before Mr Georgeson camt up. He was working in his shed, and came om to separate the dogs. While he was doing sc. one of the dogs got cut.—Henry Cioss said that on August 5 he was informed his son's dog wat. lying wounded on the road. Witness went down and the dog attempted to meet him. Hi noticed blood issuing from tho dog's loins neai his. hind leg. The wound was 4in or' Sin deep. Mr Georgeson admitted that he had struck the dog with a knife, but said he intended doing sc with the back of it. It was evident to witness that the point of the knife was used. Witness was told by Georgeson that he had .struck tht: dog to prevent further fighting. .Witness stib had the dog, and defendant had since expressed his regret.—David Eraser, remembered the occurrence taking place on the sth inst. He endeavoured to separate the dogs, but failing tt do so / went back to his work.—Seigeant Geerin' contended that the case was a very gross one, he hoped the bench would mark its disapproval of the defendant's conduct by inflicting a salutary penalty.—Mr. Platts, for defendant, urged that his client was not guilty of cruelty, but on the contrary, he had been actuated by' humane motives. In striking the dog with the knife, he had in his.hand, and had previously been working with, he .struck the animal accidentally.— Tba bench considered the case fully, proved, although, perhaps, defendant had not intended to be so cruel. They would impose a fine of 20s and costs, or in default, imprisonment for seven day«. .