ALLEGED ILLTREATMENT OF A BULL DOG.

Colonist, Volume LIV, Issue 13414, 11 May 1912, Page 6

ALLEGED ILLTREATMENT OF A BULL DOG.

Martin McCoruiacis was charged on tho information of Alpumj&c Lambert

Desgran'ges with having, on 26th April cruelly ill troatod a bull bitch, the property of informant. .... Mr. W. V. Rout appeared for informant and Mr. C. J. Harley for defendant who pleaded not guilty. Basil De-sgra'nges, son of informant, 10 years of age, stated that ho remembured taking the bull bitch through a vacant soctjon between Bridge street and New street on tho dato mentioned. There were» some sheep at the corner oi tlie section near New street, and tho dog ran towards them. Sho chased a sheep and a lamb across the road towards Mr Frank's house. Ho saw McCormack (who was in charge of the sheep) go into the mob. and bend down. Then no saw McCormack drag the" dog across the road by the hind Teg and kick hor several times in the. stomach with tho toe of his boot. Witness told McCormack to "be steady on tho dog," and he let the dog go, saying, "Get'out you brute." Wlien ho got homo'the'dog was in the scullery with frothy blood about tho mouth. i±u did not see any wool about. ..There was also a quantity of blood in the passage. He saw the dog cough up a. quantity ot blood'tho fo lowing day. By Mr. Harley: He did not see the dog catch hold of any of the sheop. iio knew the bitch'was a sheep worrier, and that his father had had trouble with hor.

Edith Desgranges, wife of informant, stated the dog came into tho -scullery. from the passage, with blood coming from her mouth. -She also vomited & quantity of blood, and was trembling with excitement. Witness went into the ■street, and har son told her that McCormack, who was a little distance away, had done it. When she told McCormack that he would hear more about it, he replied that "She has torn a leg off ono.of the sheep." There was blood ail over the house.where the dog had been, and she continued to bleed for some hours. She coughed blood until the following Monday. By Mr. Harley: Witness said that there were no external marks of injury on the dog. She was aware that the dog had worried sheep. The informant said that McCormack told him that his dog had caught hold of one of the sheep by the hind leg, and that he had kicke.d her with the side of his boot. He told defendant that he would have to pay for injuring his dog. Witness described the condition of tho dog when ha arrived home. Defendant subsequently said that he had caught hold of the dog by the hind leg and kicked her. The dog was worth £5(1, and was one of tho best bull bitches in New Zealand.

By Mr. Harley: Last yoar the dog worried some, sheep and he paid the the value of the damage done. He did not consider defendant had a right to knock his dog about, his remedy was to^ claim damages if the sheep w rere worried.

Albert E. Edwards, tobacconist's assistant, stated that defendant told ijim that he had given "Desgrangos' dog something to go on with for tackling hjs shoep."

Mr. Harley said that defendant was taking a mob of 5300 sheep along 2s ew street, when the bull dog rushed among them, and seized oner by the fleshy part of the hind leg. The dog had previously tried to get hold of the shoulder of the same sheep. Defendant caught .hold of tho,dog, pulled it otf, and gave it several kicks. The sheep bled very bad.y, and had to be killed, when it was found that its leg had been very badly lace-r----ated. Mr. Harley submitted that "on the facts alone defendant "Was justified in his action. He further contended that defendant had not been guilty of cruelty, wh^ch, in law, was described as "unnecessary abuse of any animal." Defendant's action, he submitted, .was necessary. He further submitted that a person could destroy any dog running at large which worried sheep. The Magistrate-said that if It could bo shown that it was absolutely necessary to use force to make the dog iet go tho sheep and for no other purpose that was an answer. It was another thing abusing an animal after it had let go. Mr. Harley then called evidence— '.WilL-am James Harvey, a farm labourer,' stated that while driving sheep with defendant, in New street, tho bull dog rushed at the sheep. He recognised the dog as he had had trouble with it before. Defendant seized tho dog, which was hanging on to the sheep, and dragged it for some distance. The dog did not let go until it was kicked. Defendant did not kick the dog after it iet go. Tho sheep was lame and was* bkieding at the shoulder and the hind leg. On a previous occasion the same* dog had damaged three sheep in a mob witness was driving. .. 'Martin McCorinack, the defendant, in the emp.oy of Mr. F. W. „ Fairey, stated that whoa he saw the 'bull dog hanging on to the sheep he tried to pull her otf, and as she would not let go he gave her three kicks on the head. When the dog let go of the sheep he threw her towards wie fence because he expected her to come at him. He did not heaa- Basil Desgrang-os say, "Go steady on the* dog." The wool of the sheep at th« shoulder was saturated with blood, and the iiind leg was bruised. The sheep was killed four days after it was injured, and it was found that the •shoulder had been torn away.

By Mr. Rout: H& did noft&ll Mrs. D<?sgra.nges to get the dog destroyed. ■"He'had''been warned.by Mr tFairey not to kick dogs, .even when" lighting. He had ne'V&r thrown hot water oVer a dog. He did not 'know that, the-dog was? a sheep Worrier. By Mr. Harley:, Their own degs often fought.in the yard, and Mr. Fairey had, told them all never to kick them, but let them fight. Hq told the informant that if the dog had not let go he would have got more. The only thing he could do to get the dog off was to kick it—he had no weapon. Edward Farrell and F. W. Fairey gave evidence as to the condition of the sheep that was pointed out to them as having been worried. ; In reply to Mr. Rout, the latter said he had warned his staff not to kick dogs when they were fighting, but not when they were worrying sheep. This concluded the evidence. The Court then adjourned while theMagistrate inspected the locality. On resuming, the. Magistrate said that after seeing the place he could not say that tho version of the defendant, was not true. A man in charge of sheep would be entitled '.to ',use a certain amount of brutality to free a sheep if it was being worried by a dog. He -would even be entitled to kill the dog.If a man kept a sheep-worrying dog, he n?ust take the risk. If it had beenj proved-that the defendant had kicked] tho'ctog after if..had let. go the sheep, he would 'have punished him 'severely. However, the weight" of evidence was the other way, and tho information would be dismissed. Costs amounting to. £1 18s 6d were allowed defendant.