The Care and Protection of Animals Act 1975 was placed under the spotlight yesterday in the case of an American Bulldog owner.Otis Omar Cann-Smith denies causing the animal unnecessary suffering.Defence lawyer Victoria Pearman questioned whether her client was charged under the right section of the law.Mr Cann-Smith’s emaciated dog was seized from his home on Mullet Bay Road in St George’s by SPCA officers on November 16, 2011.Bojo the dog has been housed at the Paget facility ever since.Cruelty to animals is defined under various categories under the law.The top category includes “any person who cruelly kills, beats, kicks, maims, wounds, ill-treats, tortures or terrifies any animal, or wilfully causes or permits unnecessary suffering, pain or injury”.The section that follows was deemed more appropriate in her view, which deals with “confinement or captivity, abandonment, neglect or failure to provide suitable and adequate food, water and shelter”.Ms Pearman argued that weight loss does not constitute suffering.“The dog may have looked skinny but the evidence is to the contrary and there is nothing to suggest the dog would not have gained back the weight,” she said.“If the officers took the time to speak to the owner and get the background on the dog’s history of weight loss and weight gain, we would not be here. This is not a case of something dreadful, its not even close.“The law does not require one to be a perfect owner, just a responsible one and my client has been.My client loves and misses his dog, he’s anxious to have him back; its been over a year and he feels he’s been picked on,” she added.Earlier, she called two witnesses to testify in Magistrates’ Court yesterday for the defence.Heather Dill, a dog owner who lives near the defendant told the court that Mr Cann-Smith was “a passionate man with his dog”.“I have never seen him ill treat or abuse the dog in any way,” she said.She would feed the dog when the owner went abroad for extended periods, she also said she noticed the dog was losing weight.“I joked that the dog must be stressed because the owner had gone away.”“The last time he went away around the beginning of last year I was concerned because the dog had dropped quite a bit of weight,” she added.Later during cross examination however, when asked to look at photographs of the dog when he was taken by the SPCA she admitted that she would have at least called a veterinarian.LaVince Ellis of Wellington Slip Road, St George’s often walked the dog and fed him on several occasions.He recalled the dog’s weight loss and the owner’s concern; he also accompanied Mr Cann-Smith to Noah’s Ark to find a ‘better quality of food” two years ago.He said the owner tried different kinds of food but the dog’s weight still fluctuated.He didn’t know whether or not Mr Cann-Smith ever took the dog to a vet, but he said the dog was always “high-spirited and full of energy”.“We used different foods with no results, the dog would gain weight and then drop it, but its shoulder blades were always protruded,” he said.Crown counsel Geoffrey Faiella, in his closing remarks said the fact that the owner never took the dog to the vet caused the animal unnecessary pain and suffering.“That was something Mr Cann-Smith admitted he didn’t do because he didn’t have the money and couldn’t afford it.“With the money he spent on dog food he could have taken the dog to a vet,” he said.He also referred to testimony by Veterinary surgeon Dr Neil Burnie who concluded the animal was suffering based on its emaciated state.But Ms Pearman noted that Dr Burnie found nothing wrong with the dog medically.She concluded: “There no heartworms, fleas or parasites, all the tests came back negative.“In fact it was after the dog was in the care of the SPCA it had problems, I’m not suggesting the SPCA was cruel to the dog, but things happen; this was an old, mature dog.”Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo adjourned the case until December 14, when he will deliver his ruling.