|
From the Kent and Sussex Courier, 19 June 1874.
Tunbridge Wells Petty Sessions.
Cutting off a Dog's Tail.
Jacob Muller, a member of the Austrian band, was summoned on an
information laid by Mr. Patrick Timoney, one of the officers of the
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for cruelly ill
treating a dog by cutting off its tail, at Little Mount Zion, on the 7th
inst.
The complainant conducted the case in person, and Mr. Cripps, solicitor,
was for the defendant.
Mr. Cripps said the facts of the case were admitted and the real
question for the Bench to decide would be, whether the defendant was
wilfully guilty of an act of cruelty.
Henry Carman, age 12, deposed that he lived with his father and mother
at Little Mount Zion. On Sunday the 7th inst. he was in the street at
Little Mount Sion, when he saw a little girl leading a dog which she had
found in the street. One of the Austrians took up the animal and said
"Whose dog is this?" and then without saying anything more cut off from
its tail a piece about the length of his finger. The defendant was the
man who cut off the dog's tail. When he had done it, he said nothing and
put the dog down again.
Superintendent Embery said they had the dog at the police station if the
Bench would like to see it.
Mr. Cripps says he should like the Magistrates to see the Dog.
The witness in reply to questions said that's the dogs bled after its
tail was cut, he barked and ran down the passage.
The dog was produced by the police and also the piece of tail which it
had lost.
Thomas Neale, proprietor of the "Jolly Sailor" beer-house, Little Mount
Zion, deposed that on the day in question he saw the dog in the street,
two or three children had strings tied to the dog and were pulling it
about first one way and then the other. Defendant went up to the dog
saying that he would cut the hair of its tail, and as he (witness)
believed he cut the tail by mistake. He was quite sure that the man did
not intend to cut the dog's tail. The witness was questioned by the
Bench and said he had no grounds in saying he was sure that the
defendant did not intend to cut off the dog's tail, but he believed he
only intended to cut the hair. Defendant lodged at his house and had
done so at intervals for several years past. Defendant was very kind to
animals.
Mr. W. C. Cripps then addressed the Bench for the defendant, who was, he
said a member of the Austrian Band, and on the morning in question the
dog was being pulled about by two or three children who had strings tied
to it. Defendant in order to liberate the dog went forward towards it to
cut the strings and he remarked that he would cut its tail off, and
while only intending to cut with hair he unintentionally cut deeper than
he wished to do. He contended that the defendant who was a respectable
young man was not wilfully guilty of an act of cruelty towards the dog.
The Bench fined the defendant 3s. and the cost 13s. which was at once
paid.
Superintendent Henbury in reply to the Bench said they had not succeeded
in finding an owner for the dog.
|
)