ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A CAT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2905, 17 November 1909, Page 25

ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A CAT.

At the City Police Court on Monday Ml) H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., delivered his reserved judgment in the case in which Robert Gordon was charged with having, on or about October 25, cruelly ill-treated a cat.

From the evidence it appeared that defendant set a trap on top of a fence to catch weasels and cats which raided his chicken run. The cat in question was caught in. the trap and was alleged to have hung by one fore-paw from the fence all night. Mr Hawkins (for Mr Hanlon) represented 1 the defendant.

After reviewing the evidence, his Worship said Mr Murie, defendant's neighbour, stated that he saw the ca.t in the trap it 6.30 p.m., and sent hie little daughter with h note to defendant informing him of the fact. Murie alleged that defenj danit's family refused to take delivery of I the note owing to some feeling bet Ween, the two parties Defendant stated that the note was never sent, and he (his Worship) dismissed the question of the nota j from his mind as there was no proof, beyond Murie's statement, that it was sent. I Next, morning, according to his evidence, Murie saw that the eat was still hanging, 1 and he informed the police and the secrei tary for the Prevention of Cruelty to AniI mals. In passing, he (his Wbrship) would i like to 'say- that he could not understand how an intelligent man as Murie appeared) to be, could act in such a callous and heartless manner as to leave the eat in J fs horrible position. • It was dearly his duty to release or destroy the animal. It was I difficult to find an excuse for this. It I had been suggested in court thai defendant ' pnad set the trap to endeavour to catch , Murie's cat. but there was no, evidence of j that. Defendant had stated that he had mo intention' of attaching the cord so that th© trap would hang from the fence and not reach the ground, and he quite believed that. The most that could be said was that he was careless in not exominj ing the trap. Defendant swore that he was I at the trap at 7 p.m. on the date in ques- | tion (half-an-hour after Murie first saw the oat), and that there was then nothing in it. On the following morning he did not examine the trap as 'he was late for work and overlooked it in his hurry, but | he was in the habit d examining it pvery [ morning. He (his Worship) had no doubt j the oat hp<d been in the trap for a con- ! siderable time. He had considered all the cases bearing on the point, and the result was that he -found that to make defendant liable he must be guilcy of wilfulness. recklessness, or wantonness, and in thh case he could not hold that it c»me within the meaning of the statute. Ca.rekssness was not sufficient in law fo make defendant liable. The pass would be dismissed. In regard to Murie. he thought that he was perfectly justified in informing the police o£ the -matter. Mr Hawkins: But he might have released the cat first. His Worship : I can't go into that.

It i« a curious thing, says a Wairarapa paper, that the ambition of most 6oldiers is to end their days on a farm, and, ac * rule, they make first-class settlers, too.