LABOUR councillor Paul Shotton told a court his 13-year-old dog was "fine" before he went on a family break.

The Fenton ward member of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, and his wife Annette were both convicted last year of animal cruelty by causing their Labrador, Baron, unnecessary suffering.

They were both given two year conditional discharges, banned from keeping dogs for two years, and were ordered to pay £3,000 costs.

But they immediately appealed and the case has been heard at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court this week.

In the first trial the RSPCA alleged Baron was fly-struck, emaciated and dehydrated.

In the latest hearing it said the dog suffered from urine scalding for days before the Shottons went on a holiday to Malaga, at about 2pm on Saturday, July 15, 2006.

Baron was left in the care of Mr Shotton's eldest son Gavin, who was to visit him about three times a day to feed, water and exercise him.

But at about 10pm that night an RSPCA inspector visited the Shottons' house in Smithpool Road, Fenton, after the society received a call from a member of the public.

She found the dog lying down and entered the garden to pick him up. She found him soaked in urine and he had a sore on his mouth and on his elbow.

The dog was taken to The Willow Veterinary Surgery in Endon, but he could not stand, was disorientated and distressed. Baron was put down three days later.

Yesterday Mr Shotton, aged 48, who stood down as deputy elected mayor and was forced to resign as portfolio holder for public safety as a result of the case, said Baron's health was "absolutely perfect" throughout his life.

"We had no problem with him whatsoever," he said. "As Baron got older he walked less and ran around less."

He said that Baron's weight was never an issue and vets commented how fit and lean he was. He said two bowls of water and one bowl of food were always left out for him.

The court has heard that on Thursday, July 13, 2006, two days before Baron was found, Mrs Shotton called her husband because the dog would not leave his kennel. Mr Shotton returned straight away.

He said: "He had got his feet and head out the kennel, but he would just not move.

"I tried to coax him out but he just remained. I pulled him out by grabbing hold of his collar. As soon as I pulled him out he just got on his feet and darted around the yard two or three times."

Mr Shotton said Baron was his "normal self" on the Friday. He added: "He was a little subdued, nothing immensely noticeable, nothing to give me immense cause for concern at all."

On the Saturday the councillor said the yard was cleaned and Baron was bathed before they left on holiday.

Defence barrister Jonathan Rich asked Mr Shotton: "Did you at any time notice any reddening of his coat or skin?" "Not at all, no," said Mr Shotton. Asked if he noticed Baron being incontinent before leaving, he said: "No." "If you had, what would you have done?" Mr Shotton said: "I probably would have phoned the vets and explained, and if we needed to go in I would have done."

Later the court heard from Dr Udo Hetzel, a veterinary pathologist at The University Of Liverpool, who carried out a post-mortem examination on the dog.

He said reddening of the skin can come on within minutes or hours, and that would still apply if the irritant was urine.

He said Baron could have been suffering reddening of his skin for days or hours.

He said he found no evidence the dog suffered to a significant level as a result of the reddening or dermatitis.

The appeal continues.