A £2,000 fine has been imposed on an Austrian count who shot his wife’s dog and hid its remains in a “revenge attack” during “acrimonious” divorce procedures.
Count Konrad Goess-Saurau, 70, said he was putting the cat out of its agony and dismissed a criminal damage allegation on the grounds that it was reasonable to ‘kill’ the animal in order to stop its suffering.
Herman the German pointer belonged only to his wife, Countess Susan Goess-Saurau, prosecutor Ben Worthington stated in court on Friday.
The court heard that the countess arrived at her residence in Temple Farm, Marlborough, Wiltshire, on November 21, 2017 and was unable to locate Herman.
Count Konrad Goess-Saurau, 70, denied a criminal damage allegation on the grounds that it was reasonable to ‘kill’ the animal in order to stop its suffering.
Herman, the deceased German pointer, was owned completely by his wife, Countess Susan Goess-Saurau, prosecutor Ben Worthington stated in court on Friday.
Upon discovering on surveillance footage that her husband had taken her dog, she contacted him.
She stated that his reaction was, “I have euthanized the dog since he is repulsive and nobody likes him.”
The countess, who has been married to the count for 26 years, subsequently notified Wiltshire Police of the event.
She stated to the court, ‘We had a furious argument the morning after he urinated the day before.
“I didn’t see it, but the dog had urinated on the table below through the bannister on the landing,”
Mr. Worthington stated, “The defendant had no authorization to dispose of the dog in the manner he did.”
When Count Goess-son Saurau’s Markus from a previous marriage testified for the defense, he claimed that Herman was a household pet who was friendly with everyone.
In a scribbled prepared statement given to a police officer, he allegedly admitted to the gunshot, but said the animal had cancer and was in misery.
I freely own that I shot Herman, my gun dog. It stated, “I shot him humanely and buried him with my gamekeeper.”
To stop Herman’s suffering, I had to choose the kindest path.
In addition, the Count told the police that the criminal proceedings surrounding Herman’s death were driven by his desire for a divorce and a higher payout.
However, the Countess, a master of foxhounds with the VWH Hunt, asserted that Herman, who her mother Brenda Williams gave her for her 46th birthday, remained healthy and content.
She stated, “He rode with me every morning and went out in the afternoon, averaging 10 miles each day, so he was quite fit.”
Adding, ‘It was such a horrible act, the dog did not deserve to die, and it was my dog, not his.
‘I adore my dogs. When their time comes, they are treated with kindness, calmness, and compassion.
I believe he had a great deal of life remaining. He was merely an old dog who was beginning to slow down.
When questioned by Benjamin Newton, the defense attorney, if her husband’s criminal record would be advantageous in divorce proceedings, she responded, “I never considered it.” I am resolved to seek justice for my dog, whose death was unjustified.
Mrs. Goess-Saurau stated that prior family dogs were taken to the veterinarian to be euthanized, never shot.
Christopher Willis, a farrier at Temple Farm since 2006, testified: ‘All dogs adore farriers, therefore he was always happy to see me.
The prosecutor stated that the Count confirmed the shooting in a scribbled prepared statement given to a police officer during an interview, but claimed the animal was suffering from cancer.
However, the Countess, who is a foxhound master with the VWH Hunt, stated that Herman, who was a gift from her mother Brenda Williams on her 46th birthday, remained healthy and content.
I never thought he was going a little senile or anything when I seen him.
When Count Goess-son Saurau’s Markus from a previous marriage testified for the defense, he stated that Herman was a household pet who was friendly with everyone.
He stated, “He was a hunting dog; he hunted.” He is notorious for hunting deer. We battled to stop him from doing this.’
He went on to state that Herman had deteriorated with age and was’sore, stiff, and hobbling’ at the time of the shooting, and that his body was covered with ‘cancerous tumors’
Markus testified in court, ‘There was no region of his body you could touch without feeling a lump.
‘There was a problem in the house, something had to be cleaned up every morning, whether it was urine or feces.
Markus, the son of Count Goess-Saurau, stated that Herman had deteriorated in old age and was’sore, stiff, and hobbling’ at the time of the shooting, and that his body was covered in ‘cancerous tumors’
‘I’ve seen him happier, given the dog he once was.’
Phil Holborow, the gamekeeper at Temple Farm, concurred that Herman was unwell.
That’s how I’d characterize him: he had bumps all over his body and was unstable on his knees; his rear end was falling off. The poor old boy appeared to be unwell.
“In my words, he needed to be put down,” I said. I believe he was in pain.
“He [the Count] told me the dog defecated all over the house,” he added. “I believe we must deal with this.” He requested that I bury it, so I complied.
Christopher Musgrove, former Temple Farm manager for 35 years, described the Count as a “international businessman who cares about the environment.”
Mr. Worthington told the three-member bench of magistrates: “He was not at the end of his life; he did not need to be shot.”
He stated that the Countess was “obviously devoted about her dog’s health,” adding that Herman was often taken to the veterinarian throughout his life.
Mr. Newton stated that his client is a man of high moral character and had a valid reason for committing criminal mischief.
He stated that Mrs. Goess-Saurau had “broader concerns”
The employment of a firearm, namely a rifle, to kill the animal in a “revenge attack” was an aggravating factor, according to Mr. Worthington.
The chair of the jury, Beverly Payne, rendered a guilty judgment.
She stated, “We observe that the relationship was antagonistic and was on that day.”
“We are certain that you are acting irrationally; you might have arranged for Herman to be euthanized by a veterinarian like all the other pets.”
You must have realized it would have made your wife angry. We therefore deem you guilty.
Ms. Payne assessed a £2,000 fine after stating that the offense required “considerable forethought.” In addition, he must pay £620 in expenses and a £200 surcharge.
</ad-slot