A man accused of ill-treating an animal had his identity suppressed during his trial in the Hutt Valley District Court.

A frustrated man sick of his neighbour's cat doing big poos on his lawn stands accused of taking matters into his own hands.

The Lower Hutt resident denied ill-treating an animal at a judge-alone trial before Judge Peter Butler in the Hutt Valley District Court which wrapped up on December 14.

The police prosecution accused the man of poisoning the cat, possibly by enticing it to eat anti-freeze chemicals, following a lengthy dispute with its owners over cat poo left on his lawn.

The cat suffered kidney failure and was euthanised as a result of chemical poisoning in May last year.

But the man denied poisoning the cat. However, he did admit trying to dissaude the cats from treating his lawn like a litter box.

A video played to the court showed a police officer interviewing the man at Lower Hutt Police Station last year.

"They let their cat out at night-time to wander about pooing all over the place," he said.

"They're big cats. They do poos about the size of human faeces. Sometimes you would get three lots in one night.

"In summer time [there's an] incredible smell all over the house. It attracted a lot of flies.

"It kills my lawn, my grass. We've got these patches where the faeces has killed all the grass, and when I come to mow the lawn..."

He said he tried to ward away his unwanted visitors with chili powder; sticking plastic bags into the lawn to rustle away, and urinating on the grass to mark his territory.

He admitted to lacing mince with some kind of plant poison and putting it outside at least twice; hoping the smell of the poison would deter the cats.

A vet told the court the cat suffered kidney failure, possibly after swallowing ethylene glycol which is commonly found in anti-freeze.

A witness told the owners the man had anti-freeze, but police officers found none during a subsequent search.

A police constable showed the court photographs supplied by a witness of a container of anti-freeze hidden behind a garage on the man's property; it sat next to syringes he used to measure weed killer, which were not found to contain traces of anti-freeze.

Under cross-examination, defence lawyer Lynda Stevens illustrated that the photos were not provided until several days after police had failed to find any at the property.

In summing up, the prosecution urged the court to accept their evidence was circumstantial but to "pull together all the threads".

The defence reminded the court that the onus was on the police to prove what they had claimed.

Judge Butler reserved his decision until Friday, December 18.

An interim name suppression order was continued until that time.