PIGEON SHOOTING.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81890, 11 December 1906, Page 2

PIGEON SHOOTING.

IS ATTENDANT CRUELTY ILLEGAL. JUDGE CHAPMAN SAYS "NO." AN EXHAUSTIVE JUDGMENT. 1 Per Press Association. Palmerston N., December 10. J " d ee Chapman's reserved- decision on the I'eildmg pigeon shooting appeal ease was read at the Courthouse this morning by the Deputy-Registrar of the .Supreme Court. The appeal was lieaid by His Honor in Pabnerston on,', November 22nd last, and was from a* conviction by Justices finding that thf 1 defendant, Charles Tucker (for whom" Messrs Cohen and Wilford appeared) "did on the" 22ud August, 1006, at I'eilding, illtreat a »rtain animal, to wit, a pigeon." His Honor said, in the course of his judgment: "It may bo stated, however, that defendant was a member of a gun club devoted to pigeon Bhooting as a form of sport, a match being held on the day jn question. The information laid by Mr X. Hazelhurst (Mr Mclntyre) was intended to relate to the treatment of a particular pigeon, out of 300 or 400 shot on the day referred to, the evidence relating chiefly to the wounding of the bird. After referring to the modus operandi of the-matter as diaclosed by the evidence, His Honor mentioned that there were no previous eases of the same nature as the present one to help him in a decision, and - said that it seemed to Mm that he had to approach the matter by considering two questions, viz., (1) are field sports, which involve the inlliction of pain, within the Act, and (2) is there any, distinction in this respect between this form of sport and those field sports which have come down to us from oui; ancestors? As to the first question, His Honor said that were he to iuP swer it in the affirmative, he would Do obliged to say that when, in 1849, the British Parliament passed thq Cruelty to Animals Act, it had in mind the suppressing of all sports which\involved the puruait of tic animals when it was intended that ■- such animals should be killed and pain incurred in tlie process, qnd that when in 1884 our Parliament passed an Act almost in the same words, but not restricted to domestic animals, it intended virtually to suppress aU shooting of. animals and birds unless in cases where it was shown that death without suffering ensued. In regard to the English Act, His Honor did not think that the act of killing tamej or wounding tame pigeons was within the minds of the legislators as an act of intentional cruelty. The New Zealand Act presented no greater difficulty, His Honor saying that its pur-, port was that the subject may pursue sport, even at the cost of incidentally inflicting pain upon animals, and that the infliction of such pain must not bo regarded as Contemplated cruelty, Regarding the second question, he had been asked to draw a distinction between the incidental hurting of aii- 4 Inals in the cause of sport, and sudt acts as were described which were not the acts of a sportsman following the. chase. His Honor said there was evidently a growing opinion that it was unmanly to derive amusement from acts which caused suffering to ' anmals, but such arguments would • probably not be applied until a more advanced state of society was reached. However, all he had to deal with was the intention of the Legislature when • it passed the law of 1884. The act of shooting from a mark at birds liberated from a trap had never been condemned by Parliament, and the intrinsic cruelty of the acts of the com- ■ petitors at a pigeon match was probably less than that of sportsmen shooting an equal number of birds in the field, as there was a higher average of skill and less chance shooting. The suffering of a given number of birds was on the whole perhaps less; the suffering of individuals no more. Hq could not see any logical distinction between the one mode of inflicting.,incidental pain on birds and the After noticing certain dicta of judges in other eases, His Honor concluded by saying: "It must be held that the shooting at pigeons with the object of kiting them is an adequate and reasonable object, and that, unless havr ing this in view unnecessary pain is, caused in the process, no law is brokenjjUi' • 1 think, therefore, that the appeal must be allowed, but I allow with it no I costs, as the informant brought the ; ease into Court as agent for a body, the aims of which ought to be encouraged and recognised by society, and particularly by such clubs as this; while the ascertainment of the law on this subject, so far as thia judgment ascertains, it will prove beneficial to such clubs."