"GROSS CRUELTY"

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 125, 8 March 1935, Page 6

"GROSS CRUELTY"

HORSE WITH SORE SHOULDERS. WORKED ON DROMORE FARM. OWNER FINED £5 IN COURT. "This is a case of gross cruelty," said the Magistrate (Mr C. R. Orr Walker, S.M.) in the Ashburton Courthouse this morning, when Donald Matheson pleaded guilty to a charge of working a horse with sore shoulders, and Alexander Copland (Dromore), the owner of the horse, pleaded guilty to allowing the animal to be worked.

Inspector D. J. White (of the S.P.C.A.) stated that he examined a six-horse team on Copland's farm, and found a mare with sores 2 inches by 2 inches, 1 inch by 1 inch, and 2 inches by 1 inch, which were septic and swollen. The animal was in considerable pain, and the case was one of the worst he had seen in 18 years. Defendant had admitted the facts, and had paid a little attention to the horse. He had a spare horse which could have been \ised.

Copland stated that the animal was worked occasionally to give others a spell. The horse had always been troublesome and difficult to approach. Matheson stated that he drew Copland's attention to the condition of the mare, but did not protest at having to work it. The Magistrate said it was natural that the horse winched when Copland put a collar on it. It was a pity it did not have enough sense to "lash out.'' He pointed out that the horse would have responded to any care bestowed on it regarding the sores. Matheson could not have done anything more than draw the owner's attention to the horse's condition, except perhaps protest against working it, in which case he would probably have lost his job. The Magistrate: Copland knew th* horse was in pain, and will be fined £5, with 12s costs. Matheson was convicted ai cl ordered to pay 12s costs.

Unlicensed Driver. Lorna Templeman, who did not appear, was fined 5s with 10s costs for driving a motor-car without being the holder of, a driver's license. Wireless Sets Not Licensed. Emma McKay was charged with being in possession of an unlicensed wireless set, and pleaded not guilty. The radio inspector (Mr K. S. McEachen) stated that the set was not in working order when he made his inspection, because there was a fault on the power switchboard. The set was capable of receiving when the power was restored, but it was not 100 per cent, efficient. Defendant said she did not ask the officer to restore the power, and the set was put into working order at no request of hers. It was not working properly even after the power had been restored.

Mrs McKay was convicted and ordered to pay 10s costs.

"I'll go to gaol for it," said Mrs McKay. "That is your business, but I do not think you will," replied the Magistrate. On a similar charge, William A. Stewart, who did not appear, was convicted and! lined 5s with 10s costs. Civil Business. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in each of the following undefended civil cases:— Hallenstein Bros., Ltd. v. H. K. Waters, 19s 6d with 10s costs; W. R. John v. I. Meaclem, £2 Gs with £1 4s costs; Ashburton Hospital Board v. G. Wells, £lO with £1 12s 6d costs.