CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 35, 5 November 1920, Page 9

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

OASES AT LOWEE HUTT. Four caties of cruelty to animals camo un for liearim: before Mr. F. K. Jjunt, fur.. at the Lower Hutt Court on Wednesday. ■ " ! The first information was that againßt | Harold Andrews, who was charged with ; working a horse which was visibly sufferfnß- trdm an aggravated BOfre on the i flank. , Captain J. Henry, of the 5.P.0.A., statI ed- that he' inspected the horse a week j after the" .'date on which the liorße was I alleged to have been worked—October 20— ; and found that the animal was suffering ' from a laree sore on each flank, due. ho stated, to the Tubbing of. the chain traces. .After. hearing corroborative evidence, His "Worship convicted and fined defendant (who said iu defence that had not been aware of the horae'9 condition) £Z and costs 335. . " Albert Baker, for a similar offence, was convicted and fined. £5 and. costs 28s. '•David Andrews, father of the first defendant. was charged with cruelty to three horses. Captain said the horses had apparently suffered from owes for some considerable time. Defendant said ho was not the driver, but the owner, of the animalß, and tho only occasion on which he saw the horses was at 4 o'clock in the morning, frhen ho fed them. It was dark then, and he was unable to tell if anything was wrong with T them. "Anyone used to norses should have noticed their condition," commented Ilis Worship. The Act stipulated that the responsibility waa on the owner to see that his animals were well eared for. Defendant would be convictcd and fined £5, with costs 258. The case of Jon? Wall Kuen was one. in which pigs were involved. Cor tho prosecution it was stated that the pardons at Lower Hutt had been visited by Oaptatn Henry and Constable Frost. It was found that thd pigsty, in which three pies were housed, was it) a disgraceful condition. Tho aty. was in tlfe last stages of decay., Defendant had been si von an opportunity of effecting Ihe necessary repairs, but that he had failed to 'do. For the defence it was submitted that defendant, who was unable to speak a word of English, was not the owner of the place, and had not' understood the instructions of tho inspector. The owner, a Wellington Chinaman, said he had told Kuen to look after the pigs. He took pains to impress iipon the Bench that he was sorry for what he had done; and thai- he was "through" with pig-breeding. "I never keep pig before,' he said, "and I never, keep him again." The Bench".took a lenient view of the case and .fined defendant £2, with costs 4Qs # 6d.