SCALDED SMALL DOG

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20283, 18 April 1934, Page 8

SCALDED SMALL DOG

Man Poured Hot Water on Animal. FINED “A LITTLE MORE.” When a small Pomeranian dog entered his gate William Chudley, of Montreal Street, poured hot water from a kettle on to its back, scalding the animal so badly that its hair came out. That was the evidence given when Chudley appeared before Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., this morning charged with cruelty. The defendant pleaded not guilty but the Magistrate, after hearing the case, said that he did not think the defendant had been telling the truth, for which he would be fined “ a little more,” namely £4 and costs. Chudley was charged that on April 4 he cruelly ill-treated a dog by scalding it with hot water. The defendant incurred the disapproval of the Court at intervals during the hearing by interjecting while witnesses were giving their evidence while the Magistrate was giving his decision. The owner of the dog said that he was going past defendant’s gate when the animal ran inside. Chudley had a kettle of water with steam issuing from it in hand and poured the hot water on’to the dog. It was not the first time Chudley had done such a thing. The dog had run crying to witness and he had to give it oil. To the Magistrate, witness said that the defendant had twice before poured water over the same dog. The hot water had burnt the dog’s back and its hair had come off. “Just Sniggered.” The wife of the previous witness said that after her husband had come home with the scalded dog she went to ask the defendant what his idea was. Chudley did not answer her but just sniggered. Witness also declared that the dog’s hair had come off. Inspector D. J. White, of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said that the hair was scalded off the back of the animal, which was quite healthy otherwise. lie had interviewed the defendant, who at first had refused to answer, but later said the dog had come in on to his grass. Asked why he had poured water over the animal, Chudley did not reply. In the witness box, Chudley said that he had been growing special plants and had prepared pots to catch earwigs. He had had a small kettle of water, and had gone round the pots with it, half a cup of water remaining after he had finished. The dog had come in his gate, and, from a distance of fourteen feet, he had “ shoo-ed ” it away, waving his hands at it. A “ Shoo ing ” Demonstration. At this stage the defendant descended from the witness box to the floor of the Court to give a demonstration of “ shoo-ing ” a dog away, but he was quickly recalled to the stand, where he stated that when he had waved his hands the remainder of the water in the kettle had spurted out. A little had gone over his own hand and a little bit fell on the dog’s tail. “ The owner of the dog and hi's wife came round to see me,” continued Chudley. “ They were both excited. You know, I don’t say much.” Here those in Court broke into smiles, as the defendant, in addition to interjecting while the witnesses had been giving their evidence, was volubly explaining his side of the case. “ There was a little dusty spot of ringworm on the dog’s back,” went on the defendant. “ Its hair did not come off; I don’t care if the inspector or the inspector-general says it did. The whole thing is a little trumped-up case. I have been all my life in Christchurch and no one has ever had a word to sa 3 r . against me. I feel it very much.” Fixing the Fine. The Magistrate: I am going to fine you a little more than I would have done otherwise because I don’t think you have been telling the truth. You said the dog had the mange or ringworm; there was. evidently something the matter with it, and you have been trying to cover it up in that way. Fined £4 and costs. The defendant endeavoured to interject during the Magistrate’s remarks, but was quickly silenced, and finally so after the Magistrate had warned him that if he did not keep quiet he would be committed for contempt. Chudley made a last effort asking for the suppression of his name, a request that the Magistrate peremptorily refused.