CRUELTY TO A DOG.

Otago Witness, Issue 2812, 5 February 1908, Page 36

CRUELTY TO A DOG.

A CORONER CONVICTED.

CFaost Oca Own CosbxspokoxntO AUCKLAND, January 25.

The case in which the Auckland City Coroner (Mr Gresham.) was charged with, cruelty to a dog- by causing it to be hooked by a fishhook was heard yesterday, before Mr Kettle, S.M., a plea, of "Not guilty " being entered. The facts were briefly related by Mr Brookfield, and were to the effect that a girl named Levine was proceeding down Shortland street, accompanied by a fox terrier, and when a little past Mr Gresham'6 place she heard the animal whining and went back to see what was the matter. She found the dog hung up by the ear by a fishhook, and howling pitifully. The hooks were attached to a string which was stretched across a diamond-shaped hole in Mr Grcaham's fence. The bttle girl met defendant subsequently and told him of the occurrence, and he informed her that the hooks were there for the purpose of catching dogs. Mr Gaudin, with whom the girl was staying, also approached Mr Gresham on the matter, and during a pretty hot interview defendant made the came remark. Counsel submitted that defendant's act was a very cruel and unnecessary one. Nothina could have been easier than to prevent" dogs from entering: the property by another method. Defendant had no more right to fish for dogs in this manner than a man had to deal with human trespassers with a gun. The Bench: Are the facts disputed?— Mr Prendergast : Yes. Henry Alder (the society's agent) and Esther "Levine gave evidence. Frederick Gaudin said he had approached Mr Greshajn regarding the matter, asking him if he was responsible for the dog's injury. Defendant said: ''Nonsense; I did not do anything of the kind; the dog caught himself. These dogs have been worrvinff me a lot lately, and I put fishhooks in the fence to catch them. I did not know it was your dog, anyway." Further words followed, and defendant told witness that he reserved the right to protect his property from dogs. Witness said he thought it was a ease for the society, and defendant replied, "Oh, well; do what you like." Cross-examined, witness said the dog was not kept tied up. Mr Gresham had distinctly stated that he put the hooks in position to catch the dogs. Counsel: Are you sure? Mr Kettle: The hooks were put there to catch something, ancl it was not fish. Anyway, you don't suggest they were there "for ornaments, surely? — (Laughter.) The Magistrate a/dded that he thought the proper way to prevent dogs from trespassing was to block up the holes. The hole appeared to be an invitation to dogs — almost a trap. Mr Prcndergasfc : My contention is that there is no+hing to make people fence off their property against dogs. _ If a person likes to keep a dog and let it roam about the country it is his look-out if anything happens to it. Dog-spears are legal. It is admitted fhat when the dog put his head in the hole he was trespassing, and as_ a trespasser he cannot recover for injuries received. Mr Kettle: But what is the intention? It is not rats or fish. — (Laughter.) Do you soriouslv argue that there was no intention of catching- dogs? Counsel : Barbed wire is legal, but it has to be purchased by the coil. Mr Kettle: Was this a reasonable or necessary thing to do? Counsel: I submit -it was lawful.

Mr Kettle: Of course, there is nothing to say a man should not handle fish-hooks, but the question is whether a trap should be laid. Dogs are accustomed to going through holes, and to lay out fishhooks instead of blocking the hole is unreasonable There is a more humane way.

Mr Prenderga-st submitted that defendant was not bound to look round for the most humane way to prevent dogs from trespassing. In order to convict, it must be proved that the hook was placed in position for the express purpose of torturing the animal. Mr Kettle : Well, what was it put there for? Counsel : To keep the dogs our. Mr Kettle : It was a trap. Counsel : Defendant would have been justified in shooting the dosrMv Kettle : Would he ? You can only shoot a dog under certain circumstances. Wasn't it the idea to catch the dog and identify it' Counsel : No ; the intention, was to keep out dogs. Mr Kettle- : But fishhooks would anchor them there. Defendant might have caught a harmless, innocent dog. Counsel : When a dog put his head in that hole he is not an innocent dog. — (Laughter.) Thomaa Gresham, the defendant, said three dogs had been trespassing on hie flower garden for some time, and this particular dog was one of them. He had blocked the hole, but this proved ineffectual. The dogs, he might add, had played havoc with some of his prize chickens, but he was never smart enough to catch them. He placed the string and hooks over the hole so as to prick the dogs and warn them away.

Mr Kettle : Do you swear that the hooks were not put there for the purpose of hooking the dogs ? Witness : There was no bait on the hooks or any enticement. I merely wished to keep them out. Why don't you resort to the simple method of blocking the hole? I do not know that I am compelled to do that.

Do the dogs come in now? — They have been in once.

Is it a <=chnapper hook?— I don't know. — (Laughter.) The Magistrate paid he had very little doubt as to his decision, but as the matter wai of some importance he would reserve judgment.

AUCKLAND. January 27.

Mr Kettle gave judgment in the case to-day. Having reviewed the facts established by the evidence. Mr Kettle eaid :-— " The question is whether, on these facts, the defendant ought to be convicted of cruelly ill-treatinnr. abusing, or torturing the dog. lam of opinion that this question mu<=t be answered in the affirmative. I have considered the ease cited by Mr Prcndergast. who appeared for the defendant, and I have also perused the English oases ancl also the American decisions bearing On this subjects. Tb.9 latest

New Zealand case is Hazelhurst v. Tucker (Chapman, J. ; 9 Gazette L.R. 206, December, 1906). These decisions clearly, establish that persons who recklessly disregard the feelings of dumb animals and wilfully, wantonly, meroile6sly, and needlessly cause them pain without reasonable^ and adequate object or justification are guilty of cruelty. In my opinion the facts in this case bring the defendant well within this definition, and he must be convicted, and fined £2, with costs. This conviction does not prejudice the right of the owner of the dog to claim compensation from the defendant for the damage done to the dog."