CRUELTY TO BULL

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 3, 19 January 1937, Page 9

CRUELTY TO BULL

Delay in Destruction Leads to Conviction WQUNDED BY GUNSH0T Delay in the destruction ot a bull which he had shot resulted in Mehuka Haraki, a native, of "Wharerangi, heing fined £2 with £4 13-6 costs for crnelty to the animal. He appeared before Mr. J. Miller, S.M., in the Napier Magistrate's Court yesterday, on the information of Mr, W. A. Stephens. for the Society of the Prevention oi Cruelty to Animals. The society was represented by Mr, A. H. f>. Majne and the defendant by Mr. M. R. Grant. 'llie inspector for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Mr. William Allan Stevens, said in evidence that he asked the defendant. whether he had shob a bull. Defendant said he had, explaining that he had tried to chase the bull out of a paddock, but the animal went for him, whereupon he shot it with a shot-gun, He fired two caitridges at it. Then the defendant went to a neighbour and persuaded him finally to dispose of the beast. Witness added that iso far as he knew the neighbour killed the animal the following afternpon. Mr. M. R, Grant (for the defen--dant) : You know, I suppose, that Jersey bulls are tbe most dangerous on the market? Witness; Yes. SHOT IN THREE PLACES. Paul Kaiwhata, assistant inspector for the Society of the Prevention of Ci'Uelty to Animals since 1933, said i that he visited defendant's property, ftuding that the bull had beep ehpt in three places. There was oue shot behind the ear, one in the back, and pne | on the rump. Witness saw the animal j three hours after it was shot, The animal was bleeding very hadly, and was surrounded by eows which had been attracted by the smell of blood. "Two of the shots would have been ; fired while the animal was running ! away ? ' ' asked the Beneh. ! Witness: Either ru.nning away or j standing. It was facing the other way ?— "Yes." _ | Witness added that he visited the plaee the following day to find that the bull had been shot. Tho killing, however, had been carried out too late. Mr. Grant : Aou yourself did not . destroy the animal? | Witness : No. • If the animal was suffering, should ' it not bave been destroyed at once ?■ — "I wanted assistance." You ivere move concerned with prosecutmg this nmn?=— "Somethinin like that." In fact, you had trouble with himi — "I am on bad terms with him. The inspeotors are on bad terms with everybociy, just like the local police." Ronald Davies, a farmer, of Fernhill, said that he had been asked by defendant to destroy thei bulf. The animal did not appear to be in pain, but acted in a hostile manner, so witness shot it, Cross-examined by Mr. Grant, wit--ness stated that he had often destroyed animals for the Maoris about Whan rerangi OASE FOR DEFENCE. "The case for the defence is simply that Haraki, the defendant, did every> thing he conld to dispose of the W.U, and called Mr. Davies as sgon as he eould," said Mr. Grant, Defendant admitted in the wjtnessbox having ishot the bull when it cbarged him. He went tiien to Fernhill to Mr. Davies, who was out. He returned the next morning, and found him then. Cross-examined by Mr. Mayne, witness said that he did not wish to destroy the bull because it was Jmrt, but because it was a dangerous animal, Ho had five shots at the bull, but thought that he hit it three times only. The Magistrate remai'ked that the case hinged upon the want of attention to an animal that was shot, The mistake made was in not leaving a message for Mr. Davjes on his first vjsit there. It was necessary to show that animals should not be treated in guch a manner. The action was not brought for the pprpose of obtaining a heavy penalty, but as a warning.