THE FEILDING PIGEON SHOOTING CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8308, 11 December 1906, Page 5

THE FEILDING PIGEON SHOOTING CASE.

RESULT OE' THE APPEAL.

By Telegraph—Press Aaaooiation. / i _ iui . v .PaLMERSTON N., Dec. 11. Judge Chapman's reserved decision on the Feilding Pigeon Shooting appeal case was read at (be Court house, this morning, by the DeputyRegistrar of the Supreme Cour . j The appeal was beard by Hie j Honor jfu Palmerston North on ] November 22nd last, and was from a conviction by the Justices Boding that the defendant, Charles Tucker, "did on the 22ad of August, 1906, at Feilding, ill-treat a certain ani mal, tu wit a pigeon." His Honor auid, in the course of his judgment: It may be stated, however, that defendant whs a member of a Gun Club devoted to pigeon ahooting as a form of sport, a match being held on the d<»y in question. The information laid by Mr T. H. Hazelhurat (Mr Molntyre) was intended to relate to the treat ment 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 refer.ing to the modus noerandi of the matter as disolossd by the evidence, His Honor mentioned that there were no previous cases of the same nature as the present one to help in a denifcion, and said that it seemed to him that he had to approach the matter by answering two questions, viz. (1) are field sports, which involve the infliction of pain, within the Aot?; (2) is there any distinction in this respect between thiu form of sport and those field sports which have come down to us from our ancestors? As to the first question His Honor said that were he to auewer it in the affirmative be would be obliged to say that when, In 1819, the British Parliament passed the Cruelty to Auimals Aot it had in mind the suppression of all spoxts which involved the pursuit of domestic animals, when it was intended that saoh animals should be billed and pain incurred in the process; and that when in 1884 our Parliament passed £an Aot almost in the same words but not restricted to domestic animals, it intended virtually to suppress ail shooting of animals and birds unless in oases where it was shown that death without suffering ensued. In regard to the English Aot, His Honor did not think that the act of billing orwounding pigeons was withthe minds of as an aot of intentional cruelty. The New Zealand Act preseuted no greater difficulty, His Honor.saying that its purport was that the subject may pursue sport evea at the coit of inoi-, dentally inflicting pain upon animals and that the infliction of such pain must uot be regarded as contemplated cruelty. Regarding the second question, be had been asked to draw a distinction between the inoidentai hurting of animals in the oaase of sport, and such acts as were described, whioh were not the acts of a sportsman following the chase in pursuance of the traditions of our forefathers. His Honor said there was evidently a growing opinion that it was unmanly to derive Jamuserftent from acts which oaused suffering to animals, but such arguments would probably not be applied until a more advanced state of society was reached. How•ever, all he had to deal with was the intention of the Legislature when it passpd the law of 1884. The act of shooting from a marb at birda liberated from a trap bad never been condemned by and the intrinsic cruelty of the acts of the competitors at a pigeon :aatch 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 of shooting. The suffering of a.given number of birds was, on the whole, less, and the sufferingjof individuals no more. He could not see any logical ditinction between the one mode of inflicting incidental pain on birds ani the other. After noticing certain dicta o( judges in other caseß, His Honor conoluded: "It must be held that the shooting at pigeons with the object of killing thetu is an adequate and reasonable object, and that unless, having this in view, unneceaasry pain ia caused in the process, no law is broken. I think, therefore, tjiat the appeal must be allowed, but I allow it without cost*),, as the informant brought the case into Court as agent tor a body, 1 the aims qf which ought to be encouraged and recognised by society, and particularly hy such uluba as this, while the ascertain men t of the law on this subject, so far as this judgment ascertains, will prove beneficial to such clubs."