The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-08-23 00:00:00

THE COUNTESS AND HER CATS.

In London on Saturday a special court of the Ken-
sington Bench of Magistrates was held at the -Vestry-
hall to hear a summons against the Countess de la
Torre, of 38, Pembroke-square, for disobeying a pro-
hibitory order of the justices to do away with her
numerous cats and dogs which she kept in her dwell-
ing-house. Mr. Harding, clerk of the Kensington
Vestry, supported the summons, and said that the
Bench granted a prohibitory order in June last
against the keeping of cats and dogs. The countess
appealed against their decision, which was, however,
confirmed by the Court of Quarter Sessions at West-
minster. Under the provisions of the Nuisanee
Removal Act, orders were made to get rid of the
animals, and prohibiting the keeping of the same in
the future. Those orders have not been complied
with. He now asked the Bench to enforce obedience,
and inflict a fine of 20s. a day from the date of the
service of the order. Mr. Nettleton, who defended,
said it was for Mr. Harding to prove that the nuisance
had not been discontinued. He was prepared to
show how many cats the countess had. The countess
was prepared to send the dogs away. The Chairman:
The cats made the nuisance. James William
Whitman, one of the inspectors of nuisances,
proved having visited the house of the countess
on the 6th instant, who refused him admittance. He
said the smell from the area was most offensive.
The Countess, who carried a number of papers in her
hand, was then sworn. She said seven of her cAts
had been destroyed, and she had given seven away.
The Chairman: How many cats have you now? The
Countess sairl she had three. Stray ones, however,
came to the house. By the direction of the chairman
two officers of the vestry proceeded to the house of
the Countess to ascertain the true number of cats and
dogs. The Countess said there was a great feeling
against her, and it was-niost unfair. The Chairman
said if her statement was true he would dismiss the
case. Subsequently the officers returned. Mr.
Whitman was recalled, and said he had made an
examination of the premises. He found eight cats
and one kitten in the passage and on the stairs, one
cat on the first floor, three cats in the front kitchen,
and a dead cat in the back. (Laughter.) He also
saw seven dogs—four in the garden and three in the
house. (Renewed laughter.) There were altogether
21 animals, and the- smell was most offensive.
Frederick Moore, a solicitor's clerk, who had
also visited the house, was called on behalf of
the countess, and corroborated the evidence of the in-
spector. Ile said, however, all the windows were
open. Mr. Harding said he was informed that the
countess opened the window when the officers entered.
The countess: That is not so. It is no use telling
such an abundance of falsehoods. The chairman
said it did not matter one bit if the windows were
open. The animals and the smell were there. The
countess had sworn deliberately that she only had
three cats. That was not the fact, as three witnesses
had proved beyond doubt that there 21 animals in the
house. He was of opinion that the countess was ob-
stinately bent not to obey the order of the court.. He
made an order for the countess to pay 10s. a day from
the 2nd of August, on which day the decision of the
justices was confirmed, up t 9 the present time. Mr.
Harding then applied for an order to enter the house
and abolish the nuisance. The countess: I object to
this. The Bench however granted the order.