POINT OF LAW

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 3, Issue 209, 6 September 1940, Page 3

POINT OF LAW

CRUELTY CHARGE BEAST BREAKS LEG On a charge of permitting an animal fo undergo unnecessary suffering by failing to destroy it, Hugh John Steed, a farmer-idrover, was fined £2 and costs £4 15s 4d by Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., in the Gisborne Magistrate's Court. The defendant, who was represented by Mr J. <3. Waucliop, pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant J. F. H. Macnamara, who prosecuted, said that the case disclosed cruelty by the defendant neglecting to put the animal, a heifer, out of its suffering after it sustained a broken leg. The animal was seen lying' in a paddock by Ernest Walter Pool, bridge foreman for the Public Works Department* who notified! the police, and when Constable Allen arrived or. the scene he found the animal unable to stand and with the forelock at right angles to the leg. It was evident that the animal had been caused much pain. W T ith the assistance of a Maori the animal was shot and buried. The defendant, in evidence, said that he was taking a mob of cattle to the Wairoa freezing works on May 10, when the heifer concerned broke its leg. It appeared to be a simple fracture. When the defendant left, the animal was feeding. There was plenty of feed and water in the paddock. He had never known a simple fracture fail to knit, if the animal was put off the road and kept in a quiet paddock. Francis R. Bould, inspector of stock, Gisborne, said that if the beast was left 'alone and not f}3s- - unnecessarily, a simple fracture would knit in a few days. He knew the defendant to be one of the most careful drovers in the district. To the senior-sergeant the witness said that when a beast was put in a paddock with a broken leg,, it should receive attention, and care should be taken to give the befrfst access to feed and water. In imposing the fine, His Worship said that up to the stage when the beast was put into the- paddock, nothing could be said against the defendant's conduct, but from then on the heifer was left to take carc of itself. The beast should have been given attention. It was the defendant's rcsponsibilit3 T , and he failed in it.