The Globe. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1879.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1563, 21 February 1879, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1879.

A case decided in the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Lyttelton a day or two back deserves notice from the fact that, as reported, a miscarriage of justice has undoubtedly taken place. The case referred to was ono in which a person named W. H. Keith was summoned, under the Cruelty to Animals Act, with having tortured certain cattle by overcrowding them in a railway truck in transit from Christchurch to Lyttelton. The evidence proved that 109 head of cattle were placed by the defendant into thirteen trucks. On arrival at their destination five head of cattle in a truck in which twelve were placed, were found to

bo (load. The testimony wont to 'proves that, the trucks were much overcrowded. and that the death of the civtt'f« resulted from this fact. The yard foreman of j’no Lyttelton station gave it as his opinion that itvclvo head of cattle wore too many to he put into one of the trucks used by the department. From the entire evidonee wo are bound to take it as amply proved that the cattle found dead on opening the trucks , died from such over-crowding, As clearly brings the off once tvithiu the moaning of the ■AH, This, wo think, is a proposition which no one will dispute. Notwithstanding this, however, and the fact that, so far as cau be gathered from the report, no defence was attempted b} r the defendant, the Bench dismissed the case. The decision of the magistrates, read by the light of the sth section of the Act ( which we shall quote presently), is so unique in its way, that it will bo as well to quote it as it appeared. Bore it, is ; —“ The ease was dismissed, the Bench remarking that however Improper it undoubtedly was to put cattle in a box truck the present case did not come within the moaning of the Act.” The Bench, it I'Viay be remarked, had the benefit of the advice of the Crown Solicitor, who attended to watch the Case for the railway. And yet they gave, as we contend wo shall bo able to show, a decision entirely and diametrically opposed to one of the clauses of the Act under which the information was laid. The sth section of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1878, which must, wo would fain hope, have boon entirely overlooked by the magistrates who presided is as follows: — “ Any person slaughtering branding convoying or carrying or causing’ or procuring to ho slaughtered branded convoyed or carried any animal in such a manner or position as to subject such animal to unnecessary pain or suffering shall bo hold to be ill using abusing or torturing such animal within the moaning of such Act.” This is surely plain and explicit enough, and the case we have boon referring to undoubtedly comes within its provisions. Hero we have animals “ conveyed ” in such a manner as to cause unnecessary pain and suffering, so much so that five out of twelve in one truck, or nearly one-half, died therefrom. How then could the Bench arrive at the conclusion that the case did not come within the provisions of the Act. Had it not been for such overcrowding, which the defence do not appear to have denied at all, the cattle most certainly would not have died. The defence do not set up that they died from natural causes, nor do they suggest such a thing. Hence it must be taken as proved most conclusively that they wore tortured within the moaning of clause 5. If acts of the Logislature are to be set aside in this manner by those whose duty it is to administer them, —it is time the attention of the Minister of Justice should bo called to what is nothing more nor less than a flagrant miscarriage of justice. It is no excuse to say that the Bench wore unaware of the law. It was their duty to post themselves up in it, and moreover it was the duty of the Crown Solicitor, being present in the character of an amicus cur ice, to have drawn their attention to the clause referred to. The Act is one which is greatly wanted here, and when so gross a breach of its provisions occurs as in the case spoken of, the penalties provided should have been inflicted. There was no conflict of evidence. The prosecution amply proved their case, which was not rebutted by the defence in any one particular. The Bench, therefore, had no discretion but to have carried out the law plainly laid down, and it is very bard to understand why they did not do so. Wo only hope that the attention of the Minister of Justice will be called to this case, so that a repetition of what has taken place in connection with it will not occur.

The local committee appointed in connection with the Sydney Exhibition has held its first meeting. In the absence of certain information, the business transacted was of a preliminary character. Wo would desire to urge upon the members of the committee the necessity of some more decided action being taken to collect exhibits, than the mere issue of advertisements and circulars. These may, indeed, reach with some effect the residents in the centres of population—especially in Christchurch itself. But a wider co-operation than this is wanted. It will be necessary to get at the people of the outlying districts, in order to procure samples of our wool, cereals, and mineral productions. In order to effect this thoroughly wo should suggest the sending out of an energetic canvasser into the country districts—one who could bring fairly and fully before the people the advantages to be derived from being properly represented at Sydney in August next. He would act both as a canvassing and collecting agent for the committee. Many persons, if such a canvasser waited upon them, would send samples of their products, who would put by a circular letter unheeded. We trust the committee will adopt some such plan as wo have suggested, for we feel sure that it would result in their labours being far more successful than otherwise would be the case.