He was Fond of his Cat

January 1896

Mexborough and Swinton Times January 17, 1896

He was Fond of his Cat

George Bartholomew, of Conisborough, was summoned at the instance of Samuel Gregory for cruelly ill treating his Cat.

The complainant stated that the defendant at set his dog onto his cat. He did not see the dog do it, but the cat looked as though the dog had bit it very severely and could not stand on its legs. He was away when the offence was committed, and the cat had been left with his mother.

Mr Baddiley: His wife did not take the cat part of the way to Conisborough. It was left with his mother.

Harriet Gregory, the complainant’s mother, stated that her son was going away, and she could not find “Jim.” He then went away and she went to the door and called the cat and it came to the door and then ran away again, and the next minute she heard it screaming. She went into the yard to ascertain from where the screams proceeded and saw a man standing in a field, and he was talking to a dog. She went into the field and found the cat there, and the dog was barking and worrying it. She put it into an apron and carried it back to the house, and the dog was barking and trying to get at the cat all the while.

In reply to Mr Baddiley, witness said it took place between 11 and 12. She did not see the defendant pass her house. She had borrowed money from the defendant but had paid it back again.

PC Ritchie stated that he saw the Wednesday night, it was then covered with mud and had been bitten. It could not stand on its legs, and had no power in its hind quarters.

Mr Baddiley said the defendant indignantly denied the charge against him. The affair was not his fault. It appears he was passing the woman’s house with his dog at the cat was in the hedge bottom. The dogs naturally smelt the cat and went for it. Defendant then call the dogs and did his best to get them away. When he succeeded in doing and when he had done so he gave them a good thrashing.

Frank Thompson, living at Hooton Roberts, stated that on Wednesday morning he was working in a field near Hill Top. He did not see the defendant, but he heard his voice shouting to the dogs and calling them back, and this was followed by sundry yells from the dog which were evidently getting beaten.

The bench ordered the defendant to pay the costs, namely 24s 6d.