CHARGE OF ILL-TREATING A HORSE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 15, 12 October 1918, Page 3

CHARGE OF ILL-TREATING A HORSE

DRIVER FINED £2,

Before Mr. F. V, Frazer, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday,' a driver named John Hill was proceeded against by the Sboiety iter the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on an information of having cruelly ill-treated a horse. Evidence was given that defendant was driving a two-horse lorry containing a heavy load of furniture in Austin Street on October 2, when one of the wheels caught in a mt, and it was impossible to make any progress. Two ladies' Stated that they saw defendant severely kick and lash one of the animals. One of the ladies remonstrated with the man, but he took no notice.

Mr. H. F. O'Leary, who appeared for the defendant, Btated that the horses belonged to tho New # Zealand Express Company, and were in excellent condition. Hill had come from Newtown, and desired to proceed to Upper. Pirio ! Street. When in Austin Street one of the horses jibbed, and all defendant did was to try to induce tho horse to do its fair share of the work. Counsel submitted that it waa permjssibln for a man to use sufficient chastisement to make a lazy horse work. His "Worship said he could not agree that kicking was a.fair way to treat a horse.' Defendant stated that his employers did not issue whips to the drivers. A whip was used on the occasion in question, but it was lent by the driver of a State coal cart. Defendant did not use the whip, but Mr. Leoky, a storeman, who was accompanying him at tho time, gave the horso a couple of taps with it,. Hill said 1 e remonstrated with Mr. Lecky for doing so, and denied that. he ' kicked the ho'rso.

Two other witnesses gave evidence for the defendant io-the effect that no cruel treatment had been . meted out to the horse. '

His Worship said he did not think the horses were overloaded. There was a considerable conflict of evidence regarding the alleged cruelty. He beliovcd that the horse had been kicked, and he held that to use the boot at all was unnecessary cruelty. Defendant evidently had lost his temper, but as his reputation was good in regard to the care of horses, he thought that a' lino of £% with costs £2, would meet the case. Mr. R. H. Webb appeared for the S.P.O.A.