CONVICTION DISPUTED

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 234, 28 June 1921, Page 5

CONVICTION DISPUTED

ILL-TREATMENT OF A HORSE. Convicted of cruelty to a horse, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, William Kennedy (Mr. T. Neave) appealed before Mr. Justice Husking in the Supremo Court yesterday. Kennedy had been sentenced in the Magistrate's Court by Mr. E. Page, S.M. Mr. A. Fair appeared for the .Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals, wich had taken action through its inspector, Captain Henry, in February, 1920. For the respondent society, Mr. Fair said that after a stable fire in February, 1920, the appellant, a driver, was ordered to take an injured horse to Lyall Bay, in order that it might be destroyed. Accordingly, appellant went to take the horse, but was told by the man in charge of the stable that the horse was not in a fit state to be moved, and should be shot -as it stood. Kennedy placed a rope round the animal s neck, and started for Lyall Bay, leading the injured horse behind a dray he was driving. Counsel declared that the horse was suffering agony while it was being led. While the dray was being driven down hill on Crawford Road tho injured horse fell, and was dragged on its side for a distance estimated at from thirty to eighty yards. J. H. Dineen, a motorman, whose car passed the dray, stopped, and asked the appellant what he meant by dragging the injured animal along tho road. Kennedy replied, "The horse has only choked down. Counsel said, further, that the conductor of the tram tried to get the horse on its feet, but failed. "Then,” counsel alleged, "Kennedy kicked the horse about the head. . • • Dineen said he might have overlooked the dragging along the road had not the appellant kicked the fallen animal.” Mr. Fair also said that the Magistrate had described the case as one of the- worst he had heard of. Dineen’s evidence was on the lines of that adduced in the Court below. Alfred Usmar, head stableman for O'Brien and Co., in whose stable some injured animals had been placed, gave evidence for the first time yesterday. He remembered pointing out that one of the horses was in no fit condition to be led behind a dray, for the rope would cause pain as it touched the burned pirts. His Honour remarked that the case resolved itself into two divisions: (a) Was Kennedy guilty of cruelty in removing the animal from the uftable as ho did? (b) Was he cruel in dragging the animal after it had fallen ? For the defence, Mr. Neave denied that tho horse was not in a fit condition to be led away from the stable. The burns were such that the rope need not have come into contact with them. For a time two other horses had been led behind tho dray, and the injured animal had gone along quietly. Far from the horse hanging back, it had breasted forward against the tailboard of the dray; and near the top of the hill Kennedy had pulled up his dray and shortened the leading rope, in case the horse should trip on the slack. He mounted his dray, and knew nothing of the horse falling until he felt- the drag. He did his best to pull his dray up immediately; but the horse was eager, and ho could not bring it to a standstill till it had travelled twenty yards. He had not deliberate]-/ driven on, but had done everything possible to pull his horse up. The appellant gave evidence similar to that tendered in the Magistrate’s Court. He denied having kicked the horse while it was lying on the ground. He could not understand Dineen’s statement in that respect. A crowd of people watched the horse being dragged, but did not assist him to get it up again. “Dineen was talking so much that I couldn’t understand what ho was saying,” said witness. After ten witnesses had been examined tho Court adjourned until 10 a.m. today, when legal argument will be heard.