The accused shot the a dog kept for a lawful purpose. The judge accepted the dog wasn’t a danger to anyone and if it was on the accused’s property it was only marginally so. The judge did accepted, however, that the accused was shooting at anything and didn’t know it was a dog. In other words the Crown needs to prove the accused knew he was shooting a kept animal. Because there was not sufficient evidence that Wagner knew he was shooting at a dog, his act was deemed not to be “wilfull”.
Accused found not guilty.