CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1214, 28 February 1914, Page 2

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

LOCAL CASES. The Society for the Prev enliou of Cruelty to Animals had a field day in the local Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when several cases were dealt with. Messrs Hornblow and Kent-Johuston were the presiding justices. Mr Hankins, honorary solicitor for the Palmerston branch of the society conducted the prosecutions, The first case was brought by the police against T. H. Gingell, who was charged that on February 14th at Shannon, he did cruelly ill-treat one aged bay gelding.’ Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Hankins said the inspector was at Shannon on the day in question, and saw the horse working in a coach. He spoke to defendant about the condition of the horse and asked him to remove it from the coach which defendant refused to do. The inspector interviewed the police, and sent for a veterinary surgeon. Accused subsequently removed the horse. Constable Murray, stationed at Shannon, gave evidence to the effect that he inspected the animal and got authority from a Justice of the Peace to destroy it. Witness described the condition of the horse.

Mr Rait, veterinary surgeon and a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, London, gave evidence as to inspecting the horse. It was an act of cruelty to work such a horse, and he condemned it on the spot.

Accused said he intended to turn the horse out and not work it any more. Accused was fined £2 and costs £2 ns, in default fourteen days.

Thomas Heslbp, livery stablekeeper, was charged with cruelly ill-treating an aged bay gelding on February 19th. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by Mr Rait, veterinary surgeon, to the effect that he had inspected the horse in question. It was not fit to do the work expected of it, not having the muscular capacity. It required to be turned out and rested. When he saw the animal it was distinctly weary, and showed a want of condition. Cross-examined by Mr Heslop, witness said it was not physically fit, and its ribs could be counted. Some cross-questioning took place between witness and defendant in respect to technical points about the horse’s fitness in which defendant offered to drive the Bench to Palmerston and back with the horse and it would be almost as fresh on its return as when it started. It was a horse that no amount of feeding would fatten. A short adjournment wes made in order to inspect the animal. The veterinary surgeon pointed out the horse’s weak points and apparent lack of muscular capacity. Upon resuming, defendant said he refused to cease working the horse. It was impossible to get condition on the horse. It was full of hard feed and fit to work. In cross examination defendant said the horse bad

been spelled about three mouths ago. It was then low in condition but not any lower than at present. He admitted it wouldn’t do any harm to turn it out.

The Bench said the case presented certain technical difficulties and they had to rely for guidance on expert evidence. The case did not present the usual features connected with similar cases of cruelty'. A conviction would be recorded but no fine inflicted. Mr Hankins said it was somewhat unusual to convict in such cases without imposing a fine. The Bench held it was optional.

Defendant asked that a fine be inflicted sufficient to warrant an appeal being lodged, as a conviction would prejudice his business. This was refused, costs £2 ns.

George Walls and Charles McArtney were charged with cruelly ill-treating a black pony by tying a rope round its flanks in order to compel it to buck. The accused pleaded guilty. Mr R. Moore asked for leniency' as the young fellows did not intend to harm the auinal. Mr Hankins said the action of defendants was a great piece of impertinence and an act of lanikinism. The defendants had pleaded guilty and he had been asked not to press for a heavy penalty. If they were severely admonished it may have the necessary effect of preventing such conduct iu future. The cruel practice of getting animals to buck by such means was prohibited, and professional . buck-jumpers had been heavily fiued for the practice. The Bench expressed surprise that leniency should be asked for as the act was one of torture. Besides, once the pony was taught to buck it may lead to serious consequences. A conviction and fine ot 3s was imposed on each defendant and costs, £1 Bs.