A Farrell man charged with cruelty to animals by the Humane Society of Mercer County -- a move his wife called retaliation for her opposition to a society building project -- has been found guilty.

District Justice Henry J. Russo, Hermitage, ruled Wednesday on the summary charge, and lowered the fine against Albert Mathis, 32, of 732 Fruit Ave., from $500 to $150 plus court costs.

Mathis was cited by humane officer Cyndi Sankey for depriving his female mixed-breed puppy, Righteous, of food, water, shelter and veterinary care.

Mathis was cited Oct. 24, six days after Pentecostal House of Prayer, 725 Fruit Ave., appealed a Farrell Zoning Hearing Board decision allowing the society to build an office, shelter and store at Roemer Boulevard and Fruit Avenue.

The Revs. Keith and Letitia Banks, Mathis' in-laws, are co-pastors of the church.

The society announced Nov. 25 it was abandoning the site and would look elsewhere.

Ms. Mathis stayed quiet at the hearing Wednesday as no defense witnesses were called.

Society President Richard Harakal testified he went to the Mathis home Oct. 18 after the society received a complaint about the condition of the dog.

Harakal said the dog was wet, on a soaked blanket, and did not have food, water or shelter.

He said he talked to Ms. Mathis, told her of the problems with the care of the dog, and said he would visit again the following Monday.

Ms. Mathis responded she was going to get rid of the dog by Sunday, Harakal said.

Harakal said he did not return when he said he would, but the society received another complaint and he returned the following Thursday with Ms. Sankey.

Ms. Sankey said the problems had not been corrected and she was writing out a citation in Ms. Mathis' name when Mathis came up to her.

Ms. Mathis had told her Mathis was in Panama City, Fla., and it was his dog, Ms. Sankey said.

Mathis told her the dog had never been to a vet, she said.

Mathis was issued the citation and signed it, which was an acknowledgment of receipt and not an admission of guilt, Ms. Sankey said.

Ms. Sankey said the dog was not starving but she considered it underweight. She said it had no immediate need for care by a veterinarian.

While there was a doghouse on the property, it did not appear to have been used, Harakal said.

Ms. Sankey said a porch roof was not adequate protection for the dog. She said state law requires a shelter must be provided so that a dog can stay dry, out of the elements, and retain its own body heat. She said doghouses must be big enough that a dog can turn around, but small enough to preserve body heat.

The hearing bogged down at times as the lawyers argued whether the society representatives needed a search warrant -- Russo said they didn't -- and whether the word "necessary" applied to a list of elements following it in the law.

Defense attorney Ronald Amrhein asked that the charge be dismissed, arguing that the dog was not malnourished or lacking water, did not need vet care and had access to a dry area under the porch.

He also criticized Ms. Sankey's interpretation of the law that water be provided for a dog at all times.

"There's no testimony that anything had to be done to this dog," he said.

Assistant District Attorney Keith Bell responded that the law does not require that the dog be at death's door for a violation to occur. The degree of violation in this case was moderate, not extreme, he said.

Bell said the society compromised its case by not requiring that two "essential witnesses" be at the hearing, and recommended a fine of $250.

Mathis could have been fined from $50 to $750.

A neighbor took in Righteous for a short time after the citation was issued, but turned her over to the society after she clashed with his own dogs. The society has already adopted her to a new home.