PECULIAR CASE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9434, 3 May 1909, Page 3

PECULIAR CASE.

PERFORMING OAT.

Much light was thrown upon oats and ftlieir peculiarities at Paddington Police Court, Sydney, the other day. The case which* occupied the Court's attention for a considerable time was a sequel to the recent t-how. Professor Pete Godfrey w»s the defendant, and W. H. Zonob, In. spec tor of Animals’ Protection Society, the informant. The animal, which found Itself blinking under the limelight of. the law, was produced in Court, and was asked to add its weight to the balance of ' justice by giving evidence in a practical if dumb manner for or against the charge of- cruelty laid against its master. The oat, whose colour was described by a young lady witness as “marmalade,” would possibly appeal more to the popular understanding

as “ginger. ” Defendant was defended by Mr Bertram. Dp. Frederick Zlotkowski gave evidence that he was present at an animal show given at Royal Agricultural Society’s show ground by defendant on April lOtb. A cat was produced, and defendant struck the oat several times, with on various parts of the body. The animal safe upon its haunches with fur erect, ears laid back, mouth open, and snarling. Godfrey still continued to strike the oat, whereupon witness left the tent with the object of reporting the matter to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. “I consider that the animal was most cruelly ill-treated,” said- witness. He heard defendant say something to the effect that the animal would not run away when it was bit.

Orois-examined, witness would not say that the oat was flogged; it was hit many times. On what part of the body was the oat hit?—About the shoulders, flanks, etc.

Have you had any experience with cats?—l have.

Tell the Court your experiences.— lam not a professional oat expert; but I am a dog and cat lover. Do you know that if you hit a cat it will immediately run away?—l don’t know.

Did yon see any mark on the cat’s fur?—That would be impossible. You could not well see a mark made by a whip. At this stage an ordinary dog whip was produced, which witness said resembled the one used.

The signs yon saw exhibited by the cat were those of distress? —Yes, certainly. The oat snarled at defendant each time it was bit.

You took that as a sigh of trouble? —Yes. . Miss Phyllis Olobbe said she was at the show, and saw the oat struck by defendant with a whip. Every time It was “whacked” the oat snarled. The Inspector: Do you know that a bat is a very sensitive animal?— Yes; the cat snarled, opened its mouth, and cowered. Continuing, witness said that she heard defendant say that the oat was the only animal that would not run away when whipped, or words to that effect.

The Magistrate : There was nothing to prevent it running away?—No. Godfrey said he had been for 40 years a trainer of animals. These included almost anything from elephants, lions, tigers, etc., down to mice. On the date in question he oraoked his whip to show that the cat would not run away. “My oat sits on a bos, and I call it to jump through a hoop. I never hit the oat. You cannot train a oat that way. I said to the audience, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, you can see that the cat can be trained without fear.* ”

The Magistrate: You never struck the oat at all?—No; it took me 13 months to get the cat used to the whip. If you hit a oat it runs away, and is no further use for training purposes. Did the oat snarl?—lt is the nature of the oat to snarl. This applies to lions, tigers, etc. Mrs B. F. Keep said she had bred acts for 10 years. She had given the animal in question to the defendant because she recognised it possessed superior “intellect,” and she knew that the professor would be good to it. Oats’ skins were delicate, and would show the marks and blows very readily. She examined the oat carefully, but failed to find a mark. If you struck a oat it would become timid and useless.

To the Inspector: I saw the oat this morning. Other witnesses in the employ of defendant or connected with the show testified to defendant’s abstention from harshness to the cat or other animals.

Mr Barnefct: Did yon say the oat would do here what it would do on the show ground?—l think so. At the Magistrate’s order the oat was brought in. Defendant tried to make it “sit up” by cracking the whin. The cat crouched on the chair and with the exception of uttering a few plaintive “meows’’ refused to perform. This was explained away by defendant, who said that the snrronndlngs were strange. The Magistrate said that; he could not convict on the evidence. He expressed his appreciation of the courage shown by the witnesses, who were at the loss of time to themselves acting in the interests of hnmanitv. Defendant was discharged.