AN INTERESTING CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6436, 4 January 1889, Page 3

AN INTERESTING CASE.

R. H. Donnelly v. S.P.C.A. At the Resident Magistrate's Court, before C. Whitsfoord, Esq!, E.M., P. J. Kimbeil, H. J. Hall, and W. White, Esq?., William Henry Shaw was charged with cruelly beating a St Bernard dog, the property of Robert Henry Donnoliy, and with slaughtering the said dog in such a manner as to subject the animal to unnecessary pain. Charles Orlando Cox was similarly charged. The charges were made under "The Police Offences Act, 1884." The same defendants were summoned civilly for .£lO, the value of the dog. Mr .Toynt conducted informant's and plaintiff's ease 5 Mr Joyce for the defence. Robert Henry Donnoliy, rink proprietor; Lived in Gloucester street East on Nov. 29, and then owned a St Bernard dog of about six months old. It was a healthy dog until three weeks before it was killed, when it caught distemper, but on Nov. 20 ib was recovering. Left the do? at home at 10 a.m. on that day, and about five o'clock saw the dog dead with two holes, as if battered with a hammer, in its head. It was lying at the Northwest corner of Gloucester street bridge. Witness made enquiries, and then went to see Cox, and then Shaw. The latter said that, as it was a valuable dog, he had had an- order signed to have it killed. He also said the Society might be prepared to pay the expenses of the dog's illness — about £1. The dog's carcase was subsequently taken away. It was a well-bred dog, worth about .£lO, but witness would not have taken double the money for it. Had the dog about four months. Mary Bolster, sister-in-law to last witness, said she sawthe dog lying in front of the house about twelve o'clock, and missed it half an hour afterwards when she went out. It was a quiet dog, and had been in the habit of going to the Rink; net with her. Witness nsed to feed the dog. Mrs Donnoliy Baid that the dog was recovering. Witness fed it and gave it medicine at ten o'clock on the day it wrs killed. It had bo far recovered that it came to meet her at the gate on the previous day. William Alfred Lawrence : Knew the dog since it was pupped. It was a wellbred, well-grown dog of about six months old, worth froin £8 to .£lO. Sfc Bernards were in demand ; witness recently had orders for such dogs, but could not get them. The dog cost as a pup about £2, but he had no dew-claws. Herbert Hiddle3tone,basketmaber, swore that he lived at the corner of Gloucester street, near the bridge. Saw Cox strike the dog on the head with an ordinary hammer. Neither Mr Shaw nor Mr Westenra were then there ; they afterwards came out of the Government Buildings. Before they came out saw Cox hit .the dog three or four violent blows on the head. Altenv > arda£fi»w^Mr ; ,Weat«3Uca^ga :

a paper -with a pencil, up against a tree. | Mr Westenra then went away. Coxthen hW the dog a couple more blows. Coxdd eeo^ the dog from their shop at the corner of the. street. It. appeared to be a dog about the size of a full-sized retriever. Cos hit two or three blows, and then stood j off, and again struck two more blows. ; Witness had been asked by someone from the. Government Buildings to kill the dog, but had refused. Walter Hiddlestone, brother of last witness, said his brother drew his attention to the dog. Saw the dog breathing before the order was signed. For the defence Mr Joynt called— Richard Westenra, Justice of the Peace : Saw the dog about one o'clock as he was going to lunch, and the. opinion he then formed was that he was dying of poison. On his return, Mr Shaw requested him to sign an authority for the dog to be destroyed. Witness went to look at the dog again, and from that inspection, and from what he had previously seen he judged the dog to be in a dying state, and -signed the order. Could not Bay if the dog had been Btruck. If there had been any blood mark about the dog he must have noticed it. To Mr Joynt : The dog was in exactly the same position the Becond time he Baw it as the first time. William Henry Shaw : Was empowered under the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to act as Special Constable in such matters, and was Secretary to the Society. He had made a special > study of the symptoms of distemper and poisoning in dogs. Went to see the dog at the request of some one, who reported the matter to him. He went' to see the dog, and found it lying perfectly quiet, and judged that it was either dying from poison, or from an<. epileptic fit, the result of distemper. Witness got the order produced Bigned by Mr Westenra, and called out to Cox across the road that he had the order,' and the dog was then killed, with thehammer produced. Witness never killed any animals himself, as he had a repugnance to doing so. He had a diagram showing the proper place to hit a dog to kill it. He had the dog's head exhumed, and found one fracture in the skull just where the diagram pointed out it should be done. To Mr Joynt: Cox offered to kill the dog, and stood by till the order was signed. Orlando Charles Cox, said he had been a - butcher, and killed the dog in question. He did not strike the dog until the order was signed. To Mr Joynt: Struck the dog three blows in ' succession. Believed the first blow killed the dog, and was positive the second did. Saw the dog's body twitch several times. Not when Mr Shaw was there. John Williams, Receiver of Land Bevenue : Saw the dog about a quarter to two. Would have had it destroyed had it been his dog. Leopold Loibl, draughtsman, said, from the convulsive appearance of the dog, judged it to be poisoned. Had experience in dogs. In Austria they killed dogs by a blow on the head, such as the hammer produced would give. Thomas HUI, veterinary surgeon to the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals : Had heard the evidence in the case, and from the blows described would judge' that concussion of the brain had been caused, and death would result quickly. It was a certain but not scientific mode of killing a dog. Judged that from the symptoms described the dog had had epileptic fits. It might have recovered, but would have been deficient in brain power, and next to useless for ever afterwards. He thought that the best thing under the circumstances had been done. Edward John Brock, Y.S., said the hammer produced was quite sufficient to kill any dog. The symptoms described were those of epilepsy, and had the dog been his he would have had it killed. After epilepsy they either die or go half witted, and are useless. Leopold Loibl re-called : Saw Cox strike the dog two blows only. The Bench thought that, after hearing the evidence, that Mr Joynt would not press the cases under the informations. Mr Joynt would not. The Bench did not think that any unnecessary means -had been used to destroy the dog, and that those who acted were prompted by the best of motives, and that they could not at the time find the owner. Reviewing the case, he thought the equities of the case were entirely with Mr Shaw, and would give judgment for defendant on both case?, each side to pay its own costs, plaintiff to pay veterinary coats.