A couple who allowed cancer to spread unchecked in their dog have been allowed to care for six other animals.
Pensioners Ray and Pamela Bennett failed to get veterinary treatment for Sally, a 14-year-old greyhound.
RSPCA officers had to be called out to take her away.
She was later put down because of the pain and suffering caused by a cancerous tumour on her left hind leg.
The Bennetts pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to an animal but magistrates turned down a plea by the animal charity to ban the couple, 71 and 63, from keeping pets at their home.
The couple have six other dogs at their home in Newburn Crescent, Houghton-le-Spring, near Sunderland.
Julia Russell, prosecuting for the RSPCA, argued at Houghton-le-Street Magistrates Court that the couple should be banned to protect the other dogs, including a Yorkshire Terrier and a Jack Russell.
But magistrates said the ban would not have been "proportionate" to the case.
Miss Russell described the moment in January when RSPCA Inspector Sue Craig went to see Sally, who the Bennetts bought from gipsies 11 years ago.
She said the dog "was limping when she tried to walk, her demeanour was sullen and she hung her head." Defence solicitor Michael Henderson said the Bennetts, who have had dogs since they were children, did not take Sally to a vet to be treated for the tumour because they knew how poorly she was and feared she would be put down.
Vet Alastair Stewart, put Sally to sleep after she was taken from the Bennetts' home by the RSPCA on January 16, after a phone call from a member of the public about the greyhound's welfare.
He told the court he acted in the dog's best interests as it was "in pain and suffering", not just with a tumour and badly swollen hind leg, but was thin and had a swollen jaw.
When asked by the RSPCA what he would do if a similar thing happened with one of his other dogs, Ray Bennett replied: "I've learned my lesson. They've taken the dog away and it's broken our hearts."
The Bennetts were each given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £75 costs.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article