CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22421, 16 November 1934, Page 6

CITY POLICE COURT

Thursday. November 15. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) YOI/NG MEN CHARGED, » Archibald Thomson M'Cully Dixon, : aged 21, William Dixon, aged 26, and Norman James West, aged 26, were charged with the theft, at Hooper’s Inlet on August ,20, of a range, valued at £5, the property of Hugh Clark. William Dixon and West were also charged with, on September 26, at Birchwood, Southland, wilfully damaging a steam engine, the property of George Shepherd Edie, to the extent of £2o.—Mr J. G. Warrington appeared for the Dixon brothers.—Chief Detective Young asked that the case should be adjourned until it could be heard by Mr Bartholomew, who had recently tried the two accused on a similar charge. West was at present serving a term in the Dunedin Prison. The Dixons had appeared voluntarily.—-An adjournment until November 21 was granted. CRUELTY TO DOG. The hearing of a charge against Hugh Thomnos (Mr T. O’Shea) of cruelly ill-treating a dog was continued.—Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, —Counsel for the defendant stated that his client was a man of unimpeachable character, and reference to this had been made by Constable Palmer. He was a man of equable temper and would not be likely to ill-treat a dog when he was himself a lover of animals. The prosecution alleged that the dog must have been struck two heavy blows with some instrument. The defendant would deny striking the dog or injuring it in any way. His suggestion was that when he went out and shouted at the dog it had become frightened and rushed violently into some obstacle and partially somersaulted, landing on its shoulders. After he had scared the dog it vanished from hie sight round the angle of a building. He had picked it up in a corner where it was huddled up whimpering, and he thought that it was in a panic of fear. He dropped it outside the gate. He had no idea that it was injured. The whole incident occupied less than a minute. Evidence Was given by the defendant, 1 a motor mechanic, by Mrs Thomson* I Esma Thomson, his daughter, Roy 1 Thomson, his son, James Pedofski, ra/ brush factory employee, and Willialpp Jacobsen, engineer at the Musselbvrrgli pumping station.—ln reviewing the evidence his Worship said the in a natural state of anger at seeing /'the dog among the vegetables, had gons out and put the dog out of the gate. ' ‘The dog was then in a pitiable stafjfe and its howling had caused the mei/ifcera of the defendant’s family to go od/ft to it on the street. The evidence showed that its injuries consisted of a, fracture to both shoulder blades: He found that the injuries were received ‘while the dog was on the property. The question was whether ihe injuries were received by the dog ' accidentally or whether the defendant ‘ had deliberately struck it. On thfe point there was no direct evidence. The suggestion of the defence, however, that the dog had received the injuries by. trip-' ping over or running &to some obstacle was fantastic and / absolutely nonsensical. The defendant’s story of how he carried the dog cfltit and had no idea it was hurt was ridiculous. After the daughter had gone/ out to see the dog she had told her father that she thought its legs were broken, yet he had not bothered to go, oAt to see. He did not inquire either, when or later about the dog’s condition, f The explanation of the defence could mot be accepted, and the only inferenefcfwas that, in the heat of the moment, jahe defendant had inflicted the injuries/with some instrument or in some ma/jner. The defendant would be convicted -and fined : £B, with costs (£1 2s), -witnesses’ expenses (£2 16s), and solicitor’s fees (£2 2s). ’ /i— - ; f .