Current Conditions
40°F - CLEAR
Animal cruelty charge tossed
Kennel operator still faces penalties
Intelligencer Journal
Jun 06, 2009 01:06 EST
Quarryville
By SUSAN E. LINDT, Staff Writer

A New Providence kennel operator charged with animal cruelty and violations of the state's dog law got a split judgment Friday.

District Judge Stuart J. Mylin dismissed the misdemeanor cruelty charge against Samuel E. King, who operates Country Lane Kennels at 223 Refton Road.

But King still faces penalties for 18 summary offenses for violating state dog laws, which he elected not to challenge Friday via his attorney, Jeff Conrad. King is planning to appeal the summary charges in Commonwealth Court.

For each summary offense, King could be fined $50 to $750 and imprisoned up to 90 days.

The animal cruelty charge and some of the summary offenses stem from a March 10 sting operation during which an undercover humane officer from Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals posed as a customer interested in buying a puppy at King's large-scale breeding kennel.

The officer, Tara Loller, testified Friday that she targeted an ailing 9-week-old poodle mix missing "a good bit of its tail," the remainder of which was oozing, bleeding and had jagged pieces of skin hanging from it.

Loller said that King and his veterinarian, Thomas F. Stevenson of Twin Valley Veterinary Clinic in Honey Brook, told her that King had severed the puppy's tail when he was grooming it the previous day.

But Loller testified Friday that when she saw the dog, it was covered in feces and showed no signs of having been groomed.

Assistant District Attorney Christine L. Wilson argued Friday that the dog's wound was a result of King's attempt to dock its tail without anesthetic, sutures or even the proper training to undertake the surgery.

Conrad countered that even if King did cut the dog's tail, Wilson did not prove the act was willful and malicious, as required for the animal cruelty charge to stick.

Mylin agreed with Conrad and dismissed the charge, citing too little evidence.

"They continually overcharge these things," Conrad said of the state Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement and other agencies that filed citations against King, including Humane League of Lancaster County and the PSPCA. "It looks great in the headlines, but the facts don't add up. What they're doing is inappropriate."

Wilson said it was appropriate for Mylin to dismiss the cruelty charge.

"I support (Mylin's) ruling," Wilson said. "King's kennel license was revoked, which was our main goal."

The Bureau revoked King's license in March, effectively putting him out of the breeding business. King is appealing that revocation to the Bureau.

Meanwhile, King's veterinarian of record, Stevenson, is facing trial for an animal cruelty charge related to a surgical procedure he performed after King allegedly severed the dog's tail by accident March 9.

At a hearing in April, it was unsuccessfully argued that Stevenson appropriately treated the puppy's ailing tail just before Loller bought the dog March 10.

Stevenson testified at his preliminary hearing that he didn't amputate more of the puppy's tail, but only snipped away skin, dried blood and scab. He also denied Loller's charge that he held the dog's back end under steaming water before cutting it with scissors.

In May, Stevenson's license to practice veterinary medicine was suspended pending the outcome of a hearing before the state Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs.

Wilson said she expects Stevenson's trial to take place in September.

E-mail: slindt@lnpnews.com


Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 8 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
Quote from article:

Meanwhile, King's veterinarian of record, Stevenson, is facing trial for an animal cruelty charge related to a surgical procedure he performed after King allegedly severed the dog's tail by accident March 9.

Severed the dog's tail by accident? Seriously...someone would say in court that it was an accident? I'm sure that there are possible very odd scenarios where you accidentally cut a dog's tail, but I doubt it in the case of this mass breeder.

Common sense tells me that when you have 18 charges against you, regardless of how many of those stick, you're a bad "so-called" breeder.
4sure
QUOTE (doggone @ Jun 6 2009, 08:55 PM)
This unprovable nonsense is getting waaaaay too far out to be true. When it comes from a group definately by their own definition out to permanently eradicate all domestic animals--nothing any says can be believed. Possibly worse than crucifying our breeders and vets, they endanger our national security. Our nation's food storage is at one of the lowest levels ever. We don't need these terrorists trying to eradicate animals as companions, for work, and for food. Animals we need and always will. Radicals we have no need for. The state that participates in wasting money in frivolous trials deserves to be sued as well.

What group are you talking about? The PA chapter of the SPCA? They are not PETA. Where are you getting this info that they don't want you to have 'domestic animals'? SPCA radical?

Seems you are taking this accusation/charge and running with it, with intentions/designs of your own to make the PA SPCA chapter look bad. Please include some evidence with YOUR charges.
spaylady
QUOTE (doggone @ Jun 6 2009, 08:55 PM)
This unprovable nonsense is getting waaaaay too far out to be true. When it comes from a group definately by their own definition out to permanently eradicate all domestic animals...


As the GEICO caveman would say...uh, what?!

You're charging the SPCA with eradicating domestic animals? I suggest someone goes back on their medication(s).
4sure
QUOTE
Stevenson testified at his preliminary hearing that he didn't amputate more of the puppy's tail, but only snipped away skin, dried blood and scab. He also denied Loller's charge that he held the dog's back end under steaming water before cutting it with scissors.


I was told that the scalding hot water wasn't even possible b/c the kennel didn't have a hot water heater. Cold water only. So now I'm starting to question a lot of what was reported and the charges that were brought against the Vet and kennel owner.
Beth
QUOTE (4sure @ Jun 16 2009, 12:11 PM)
As the GEICO caveman would say...uh, what?!

You're charging the SPCA with eradicating domestic animals? I suggest someone goes back on their medication(s).


I think he meant livestock.
QUOTE (Beth @ Jun 16 2009, 07:24 PM)
I was told that the scalding hot water wasn't even possible b/c the kennel didn't have a hot water heater. Cold water only. So now I'm starting to question a lot of what was reported and the charges that were brought against the Vet and kennel owner.


PSCPA and PETA have often played the ends justify the means. Credibility is not of their concern if it gets the job done.

lanzate
Top Ads