Facebook
Twitter
RSS![[Masthead]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (7)
Huston was charged in connection with the discovery by a local veterinarian of a too-small and too-tight flea collar around the neck of a dog Huston owned and brought in for treatment. The veterinarian notified local law enforcement of the dog's injuries.
Huston, who elected to plead guilty without the assistance of an attorney, received a suspended imposition of sentence and two years of probation, plus court costs. He is also required to allow random inspection of animals in his care by law enforcement officers during the probationary period.
Saline County Prosecuting Attorney Donald G. Stouffer said Huston had "exercised bad judgment," in not realizing the collar was tight enough to cause serious injury to the dog, but added that "he did not intentionally injure the dog and sought treatment for it as soon as he became aware of the problem."
Bellamy called the plea offer by the prosecutor "generous," and said he was "shocked" by the photos that were presented as evidence for the charges.
Huston said he was shocked, too, when he understood the nature of the damage to the animal.
Bellamy warned Huston that he should take the conditions of the plea agreement seriously, and pointed out that the state could revoke probation and impose the full sentence of 15 days in jail and/or a substantial fine or both if he violated its terms.
"The sentence that could be imposed is proper" for the crime, Bellamy said, "So take good care of any of your animals."
Contact Kathy Fairchild at marshallhealth@socket.net
Related story:
Forgotten flea collar injures dog:
www.marshallnews.com/story/1609354.html
Comments
Was my thoughts too, I just hope the dog has come out of this whole thing.
the26er,
I may be wrong here, but I suspect that this reporting and subsequent filing of charges was a result of Mr. Huston taking the dog to the vet's office orginally. It may be one of those situations that the vet is required to report; much like a gunshot patient at a hospital emergency room. If that is the case, he did the right thing, but is paying for his neglect. Just speculation on my part.
Kathy - thank you for your reply - I am not saying that the owner should not be held responsible for this, but if you read my comments to the original article on this case I spoke about wondering how it got to this point without some other person (a friend or neighbor or someone) not realizing it was becoming a situation. I know many elderly persons who truly love their pets, but because of their own limitations do not assess or realize an injury or illness. I do not know if that is the case with Mr. Huston as I do not personally know him - I just hate to see such a severe charge as the charge is not going to make the animal better, but now that a veterinarian is aware of it, hopefully recovery can occur. I had also stated that I have had more than my share of animals appear near my house, many who have been dumped, some in fairly good condition, some not so good. I anger when people intentionally abuse the creatures, I just was questioning as to whether it was provable that Mr. Huston had intent to harm, or was it just an unfortunate case of "not knowing", or not having the resources to be able to take care of the cost (I know vet bills are not cheap, and most critters do not have health insurance - it is unreal on cost also)>
the26er: Missouri casenet does not provide any information on a previous conviction, but that is likely because online court records are relatively new and older files do not always contain detailed information. Information for the stories we've written on this case came from the incident reports; the photographs included show the injuries to the dog were quite severe.
The earlier article says this is a 2nd offense?
What was the first one, and when? Anyone know?
Hickory Dickory Dock - to what are your referring? I do so hope it is not a stab on my comment. I am all for the animal, but also feel the owner did not intentionally harm this animal. I have seen much intentional mistreatment, those type of people would have never even had a flea collar on "their" animal. I also have seen many animals left to fend for themselves for various reasons. Come to my home in the country and I will show you 3 that had no future 6 - 10 years ago, they found me, and are probably some of the most loved critters you will find.
Had this man proved mistreatment to that animal or other animals in the past? Why would the veterinarian not just give him some advice and counseling regarding the situation? Surely there would have been ways to follow-up on the situation, without immediately pressing charges, and going through this court situation? We have become such a lawsuit happy people - what ever happened to just getting along, respecting each other, and HELPING OUT OUR FELLOW NEIGHBORS without trying to get so intense and showing animosity?