Wednesday, September 2.

Clutha Leader, Volume I, Issue 9, 3 September 1874, Page 5

Wednesday, September 2.

James Rtid, charged with illtreating a horse (adj mrned from last Court day).° Mr ReiJ, for defendant, pleaded not guilty, and trhe foilowiDg evidence was called : —

Peter Mason— Saw a hors? put into a spring cat t in Clyde-street by defendant and Hewitt, on l.th August. The horse refund to work, and they flogged it with a whip, while some parties pu-died the cart hi hind In Renfrew-strtet Reid lifted a mafeuka rail and punched the horse in the eic.es with it, when it plunged and reared and dropped down dead.

Cross- examined by Mr Reid— The horse appeared to be a stubborn one. I did not think the treatment was such as to cause death, and have myself treated horses worse. I was about sixty yards distant from them when the rail wa.s u«ed.

John Thomson, storekeeper— Saw the horse in the spring cart in Clyde -street plunging about, and Reid and Hewitt whipping j\ They went up Renfrewstreet when Reid ook a rail and poked the horse in the ribs with it. I consider the horse was badly iliftreate-. Cross -examined — I have peen young hordes in a breik being broken in, bot never saw one t>o illused. Reid used the rail till the hort-e dropped. I was about sixty or eighty yards distant. A Ross, storekeeper— Saw the occurrence in Renfrew-street, where a crowd had collected. Reid and Hewit lashed the horse *-*i.th all tbeir strength. Saw Reid take the rail and punch the horse with -it all over tbe body,— ribs, hips, &c. I was four or five yards distant. The violence was quite uncalled for, and the horse was cruelty beaten. Cross-examined — I have seen horses broken in, but never saw one so badly treated. This was the case for the prosecution. For the def&ice, Mr Reid called— Johp Lane— Who said tbe whip was ust d too Ireely, and after going to Renfrew- street a rail was used by Reid. This was quite unnecessary. A quieter course should have been taken with the horse. The cha-tisement was too severe. Charles Hewitt— Had had the horse in double harness for some weeks. Had an offer for him to go in single harness, and tried him in the r-pring cart. T.ied him "by coaxing: than the whip. Reid was as^istinjr. The hfrse plunged and reared. Reid took the rail simply to steer him along the road as he plunged to the sides. IHe merely tvkled him with it. He did j not ill treat him. I have treated horse*, similarly. It is common to steer horses in the same way as Reid did when they were being broken in. There were no marks onthe horse, and 1 think his violentplungicg bad ruptured something inside which ■ caused death. I Sergeant F.nnegan—- Only ; saw the first of the affair. Saw Hewitt use the whip on the horse's fore legs, but did not see any ill treatment. Charles Hewitt was similarly charged, and the evidence called wa9 held as taken in his case. In addition Mr Keid called — James Heid, who corrobo'ated tbe evidence generally, but as to the rail said he only pushed the horse with it, to keep him off the bank, and make hfm go. Mr. Keid addressed the Bench on behalf, of the defendants, -and contended that although the horse bad been cruelly treated it bad been rendered necessary by his refusing to" work, and to break him in; Horses were treated daily! in the same manner in Milton and elsewhere. His Worship said the evidence was quite conclu-ive as to the horse hga»ng been cruel-y^ti-eated. He regretted rapJad treatment Of horses came so frequently under his own personal observation*, especially when when they we ire being Broken inp-6r more' correctly broken down. Su^jhil usage of; these anima s had a bad jeffect upon the men as^well as the horses, y In the present case the defendants had' tota ly "mistaken the treatment to which the . horse should; have been -^H ctedV 3^ costs, or seven days i-uprisohment* with* ; hard labor. .. :. . - ./ •-.;. [>%^.^-' v >; ;.! „. Robert and David Parquhar were charged on the information; of *;WV : A> Motley, with

haying been guilty on the 17th August cf' willful trespass upon his farm of RocUaod**at Warepa, as also at same place and date, of damag-ng a gate, and fastenings, his pro*' per.y. . . ; : ;.;:;;.;/; " -.-/' \- ■ ; Mr. Taylor appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not guilty. ' j From the evidence of complainant and his fon, he appeared to have been much annoyed of late by parties opening the gate referred to, trespassing upon his "farm at Warepa» I letting out his sj_jeep,;&c. He had procured a padlock aud chain to lock the gate, buti the same bad afterwards been several times broken open. A watch was set to dttecu the guilty parties, and the defendants were caught in the act. . ■'-„.' Mr. Taylor for the defence led some -evidence as to the road lines in the district, and contended that although the defend-' ants miijht not have a legal right to pass through' the gate referred to that they had such a fair and reasonable preemption of a right as would prevent them nam being amenable to penal consequences under the act. - • „'-"_ ; His Worship said theonly question was whether the defendants had sucsh and reasonable presumption of a right as contended for by their counsel. He did not thiuk tbey had. The fact of their finding the gate locked after they had repeatedly broken it op-m' should have been ample evidence to them that the owner of the paddock claimed exclusive right to it. At the same time there had evidently been some disputes about the roadlines in the district, and the Boad Board, he thought./ had shewn remissness in the matter. So far us tbe evidence went, it seemed the interests of the public had not been much looked after by that body. On the charge for damage, he gave judgment for ss, and a fine of 10s each and costs. At his VV ship's suggestion, the complainant agreed to withdraw the information for trespass.