POLICE COURT.—This Day.

Thames Star, Volume XVI, Issue 5120, 15 June 1885, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—This Day.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) Cetjeltx to Animals. Richard Taylor was charged, on the information of Detective Doolan, with illtreating a mare, between the 7th and Bth inst., by allowing it to wander about with its fetlock dislocated.

Inspector Eiely conducted the case for the prosecution, and briefly stated the facts of. the case.

John Hawkins, sirorn, deposed— Knew the white mare owned by Mr Taylor, but did not notice anything the matter with the animal. Had not had any conrersation with Mr Taylor about the mare.

Cbas. Kidd deposed—He "was up the Waiotahi Creek on Sunday last, and noticed a white mare opposite Mr Hawkins' place with its fetlock dislocated, and its foot partly fumed. Did not know who owned the animal, but on coming home witness met Mr Hawkins, who told him the mare belonged to Mr Taylor. The wound would cause a great deal of suffering to the beast. Considered it cruel to allow the beast to roam about in the state it was, and thought it should hare been shot. To defendant—The fetlock was dislocated, and there was a small hole in the side of the joint, from which there was a small dischargf of blood when be saw it. To the Bench—lt was impossible for the horse to reuover, and it was cruel to allow it to wander about. Deteetire Doolan stated that on Monday last he west to see the mare in questiofi. She was feeding up the Waiotahi Creek, The near fetlock was turned up, and the mare could not walk on the sole of thofoot. Saw Mr Taylor, the owner, of the animal, and advised him to shoot it as soou as possible, which he did, Con-

sider<?d it was beiug ill treated by being allowed to wander about.

Defendant staled tbat be had turned the mare out with splints on, bat he could not; say when they had come off.

The Bench said there could not be the least doubt that the animal had been sub-, jected to rery cruel treatment, and after severely admonishing the defendant, inflicted a fine of £1 and costs, 11s.

BDPPLYIN& IIQUOE TO X P3OHIBITED PEBSON. 1: «ramcs Verrall, licensee of the Short*? land Hotel, was charged, on the in forma* tion of Constable Bern, with selling liqnor to Alice Trainor, on the 10th inst., knuwiog her to be a prohibited person. Mr Miller appeared for the defendant, and stated that the liquor had been supplied by Mrs Verrall in the absence of her husband, bat nhe did not know that it was Mrs Trainor. Inspector Kiely, who conducted the case on behalf of the police, said Mrs Trainor had left her house in the Waiotahi Creek on the morning in question, and was seen by her son to enter Verrall's tiotel and drink the liquor. There had been three prohibition orders issued against her. Alice Trainor, sworn deposed—Knew Mr Yerratl's hotel at Shortland, and was thereon the 10th inst., when MrWarrall supplied her with liquor. Had been there once before since the present prohibition order had been issued against her. Mrs Verrall did not address her by name on either occasion. To Mr Miller—Went in by the front door. Mrs Verrall knew her quite well, as she had often seen her passing the door. She did not ask her name, consequently she did not tell her. To the Bench—Except on these two occasions she had not been in Yerrall'g hotel. Charlotte Verrall deposed—Assisted her husband in keeping the hotel in Shortland. .Recollected seeing the last witness in the hotel on the 10th inst., and serred her with liquor. Had never aeen her before. . To Inspector Kiely—Mr Verall had told her Mrs Trainor was not to be served with liquor, but did not know *ho she was. The Bench said there, could be no doubt that there was no knowledge that the person supplied was a prohibited person, and consequently dismissed the charge. The Court then adjourned.