CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 62, 15 March 1913, Page 5

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

CASE AGAINST PROMINENT RESIDENT DISMISSED.

At the Stratfbrd Court yesterday moaning, before Mr Kenrick, S.M., George Albert Marchant was charged with cruelly ill-treating a horse by working it with a sore shoulder. Sergeant McNeely prosecuted, and ''Mr Robert Spence appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Giving evidence, Sergeant McNeely stated that on Saturday, March Bth, he had his attention drawn by Constable McGowan to two horses standing in Broadway. He examined the horses, and found a patch on the right shoulder of one about an inch m length and about a quarter of an inch in breadth. It was bare of hair. Ihe greater portion of this bare patch was red and raw. There was no one in attendance on the turn-out. When the driver came along, he drew ms attention to the horse’s shoulder. 1 said,” continued Sergeant McNeely, “the horse was suffering from a sore shoulder.” Defendant said, “Mhat rot!” He went to get into his conveyance without looking at the horscs’s shoulder. ' Eventually I prevailed upon him to have a look at the shoulder. He merely glanced at it I asked if that was not a sore shoulder, and he said, ‘You don’t know what you are talking about; you had much better do something else.’ When I insisted upon his giving me Some attention and his horse’s shoulder some attention, he jumped in his trap and said to mo ‘Go to Bath I’ ” Mr Spence: You know the defendant; you know his reputation? Sergeant, McNeely; I can simply judge the defendant from what I have seen of him. I did not know him when I examined his horse. Mr Spence: Did you bring this case against the defendant because you were annoyed Sergeant McNeely : My objection was to Mr Merchant driving off. without looking at the horse’s shoulder or relieving it in any way. Mr Spence: Other people can read between the lines; were you annoyed?

Sergeant McNeely: Yes! Mr Spence: Did you lay the charge because you were annoyed? Do you not now admit that you have made a grievous error in laying this charge ? Sergeant McNeely: No; not as regards this case. I have done the perfectly right thing. Mr Spence: Will you sweat that this sore was red and raw ? Sergeant McNeely: Yes. Mr : Spence; Are you stire that there is nti of being annoyed about -this ? There is nothing in my suggestion 1 ' that this charge was the restilt of your being annoyed? Sergeant McNeely: No! Mr Spence: Very well; I will have something to say about it. Constable McGowan gave evidence in support of Sergeant McNeely’s statements. He noticed a red patch on the right shoulder of one of the horses, ami drew the Sergeant’s attention to'this and to blistered patches on the other shoulder of the horse. Mr Marchant came along and said, when Sergeant McNeely had pointed out the horses’s injuries, “What rot; you don’t know what you are talking about!” Eventually defendant looked at the sore, and said he could not see anything in working a horse in that condition. As he drove away, the defendant told the Sergeant “to go to Bath.” To Mr Spence: The other horse was scalded a bit. The horse ouside the Court was the horse which had the sores upon it. Witness and the Sergeant had not conferred as to the matter of this evidence. Since Saturday last he had not mentioned the matter to Sergeant McNeely. Mr Spence then outlined the case for the defence, which was a complete denial of the evidence tendered by the police. They denied that the words complained of had been uSed: they denied that the sore was raw, or that it was giving the horse any pain. There was an old scar on the animal, and the police were entirely mistaken. Mr Spence said it was very regrettable indeed, that a man like Mr Marchant, who’ was noted for the way in which he looked after his animals, and was a man of excellent reputation, should be brought before the Court on such a charge. Mr Spence then called Mr G. A. Marchant, farmer, residing at Cardiff, and defendant in this action. On Saturday last his sons, while he was having his dinner harnessed up his two mares, and he drove two relatives of his doAvn to the train. After seeing them off, he drove into Broadway and pulled up at Bellringer’s establishment. While outside there, a man in civilian’s clothes, who he had never seen before, came to him, and in a loud peremptory tone, said, “Do you think it is right to drive a horse with sore shoulders. You’ll bo getting yourself into trouble for cruelty to animals.” Witness said, “I have no horse with sore shoulders that I know of.” The man (Ser< geant McNeely) then said, “That horse has sore shoulders.” AVitness but the collar may have chafed it coming down. But anyway they only came down in the empty waggon. The Sergeant said, “I don’t care; I reckon it’s cruelty to work a horse at all, when it has a sore shoulder.” This conversation took place alongside the driver’s seat. They then walked up towards the mare’s head, and Sergeant McNeely put his hands on the horse's shoulder and said, “That is a sore shoulder.” Witness said it was not, and again repeated his denial, remarking that the mare did not even flinch. “Anyway,” continued witness, “I said if you’ve nothing better to do than fuss around on a matter like this, you must be very hard up for a job.” With

regard to the other horse, the Sergeant had stated that that also had a sore shoulder, which witness denied. Continuing his evidence, Mr Marchant stated that he left the horses at McBain’s to have one of the mare’s shoes attended to, and went up town. At his request, Mr Mcßain examined the mures, and also got Mr Harkness to examine the horse. Witness also asked Constable Liston to look at the horses’ shoulders, and the constable did so. Eight years ago, when a foal, the mare tore tier shoulder on barb wire. At one spot there was a triangular wound upon which the hair had never grown. The expressions “what rot” and ‘‘go to Bath” were absolutely untrue, and were never used by him. The scar was not raw, and theshoulder was not sore. The collar did not touch the scar. The mare was in the same condition now as it was in then. When the constable served the summons, ho had showed the horse, but the police officer did not make any comment. Ho did not expect the man to. Witness was cross-examined at length by Sergeant McNeely. George Mcßain, blacksmith, deposed that ho knew the mare, and had shod her for about five years. He saw her on Saturday afternoon last, at Mr Marchant’s request. He had seen the same mark on thrf horse for years. It was a big scar on the right shoulder and extended for eight or nine inches. It had healed up years ago, but the hair had not grown on it. It was in the usual condition on Saturday. There was not the least cruelty in working the horse with such a sore, because it was not near the collar. He saw no “raw and redness.' He handled the sore, and pressed it about, and the hors© did not flinch. Reginald Frank Harkness, stated, in evidence, that he had had long experience with horses. He laughed when Mr Marchant asked him to examine the horse. He pinched the scar and the mare did not flinch. He did not think the Sergenat would proceed with the case. There was not the slightest suspicion of soreness or redness. The mare was hot under the collar, as she was in good condition.

To Sergeant McNeely: Mr Marchant came to him to do business. He saw merely an old scar on the right shoulder.

Harold Crawford, storekeeper, Cardiff, corroborated the evidence of the other witnesses for the defence. The skin was thinner over that wound on the right shoulder, but he did not think the collar could touch it. The collar pressing on it would cause pain, and a sore. The skin, however, would be callous to a certain extent.

Edward Mason, veterinary surgeon, also gave evidence. While at Mr Marchant’s place on other business, he examined the right shoulder of the horse. He could find no soreness, and told Mr Marchant that it would not be cruel to work the horse. It was impossible for the scar to have been a red and raw wound on Saturday. It was not unusual to rub a horse under the jaw or under the legs with Little’s dip. There was no sense in putting it on the shoulder. That was just a fad, and a common one, He did not think the collar would hurt the sore, providing the collar was clear and was resting on it. To his mind, there was no suggestion of cruelty. To Sergeant McNeely: If the wound was scalded it would take twenty-one days to put the skin in order and heal it up. A good deal of improvement, however, could be made in a few days reducing the redness. To His Worship: Where the hair had not grown, the skin would have a tinge or blush. There would have to be irritation to make a sore

Having inspected the horse, Mr Kenrick reviewed the evidence, and summing up, said there was nothing before him to show that the horse had suffered any pain. Ho could assume that there might be a certain amount of tenderness when the skin on the scar, which was an old one, was irritated. He thought, under the circumstances, that it would not be right to convict the defendant of cruelty, and the information would be dismissed. Mr’ Kenrick added that he thought that if the explanation had been given by the defendant that it was an old wound and that it became red like that whenever the horse was used, the Sergeant might possibly have looked at it from that point of view, and see some expert witness on the question. The information might not then have been laid.