From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 29 May, 1872. 1d.

CRUELTY TO A CAT

William Machie a lad about 14 or 15 years of age, was summoned, upon the information of Supt. Parker, for cruelly ill-treating and torturing a cat at Deal  on the 23rd inst.

James Sidders, landlord of the "Sir John Falstaff," public-house, Lower Street, deposed: Between ten and eleven o'clock on Sunday night last I was standing on my doorsteps talking to a man and his wife who were just leaving my house, when I saw someone come round the corner with a dog, and the dog caught a cat which was there. I sung out to the person, "Oh! you brute; you should not do that;" and the man I was talking to ran after the person who had the dog. (The witness subsequently explained that he called out to the person in consequence of hearing him clap his hands to set the dog after the cat. He did not know the person who had the dog.)

In answer to the defendant, Mr. Sidders said he did not see him set the dog at the cat.

Stephen Solly was next sworn. He said: On Sunday night I was in Lower Street about 10.30 in company with a friend. As I was turning up Water Street I saw someone with a dog, and he clapped his hands and said, "Catch hold of it." I went up the street a little way, and as I came back I saw a young man, whom I had previously noticed, running up Water Street after someone else, but I don't know who it was - I could not see as it was dark. The boy who was being chased ran into Mr. Mackie's. He had on a white gabardine or jacket. (The Supt. Here said the witness had told him that the boy was William Mackie, and upon Clerk questioning the witness he said it was the defendant. He added that he did not see any cat at the time the defendant clapped his hands, but he did see one lying in the road afterwards with a piece out of its back. The Supt. also said the witness voluntarily informed him who the person was who had the dog, but Solly now stated that the police first asked him what he knew of the transaction. Mr. W. Conley, who said he had been asked to attend the Court by defendant's father, who was away at sea, considered that the latter fact lessoned the value of the witness's evidence.)

In defence, Defendant said: I did not mean the dog to kill the cat, only to chase it. The dog was a greyhound. I think the cat belonged to Mrs. Barnes. I was out giving the dog a run before going to bed.

In answer to the Mayor, the Supt said he saw the cat some little time after the occurrence, and he ordered it to be killed as its back was broken and it was otherwise much injured. The Supt also stated, in answer to another question, that he believed this was not the first complaint that had been made against the defendant, as Mr. Sidders and Mrs. Barnes had said they had heard he had done something similar before.

Both the parties referred to were present, and upon being questioned, Mrs. Barnes said she had merely heard some boys who used her shop say that this was not the defendant's first offence, and Mr. Sidders said he personally knew nothing of the matter.

Mr. Ricard, the head master of the Wesleyan Day School, spoke to the defendant's general character, the latter having been in the school some three years, and stated that he had never known him to be guilty of a cruel act in the playground.

The Magistrates deliberated for a short time, when the Mayor announced that they had decided, under all the circumstances, not to record a conviction against the defendant, but to let him off by payment of the costs and the summons, in all, 12s. 6d.

The money was at once paid.