Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

CHARGE AGAINST FARMER. TIEIXG UP COWS. At the Timaru Magistrate's Court, before Mr. E. D. Mcreley, S.M., W. Candy was charged with causing unnecessary suffering to two cows by fastening one of their front legs to a rope tied around their necks George Gliddon, inspector for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animate, stated that he saw two dairy cows fastened in the manner stated. One cow, an Ayrshire, had a rope round its neck and tied at one end to the animal's fore leg. A short piece of rope, knotted at one end, had, however, caught in the cleft of the hoof, thus shortening the length of the rope to about twelve inches. Considerable inflammation and festering took place in the hoof as a result. The other animal was fastened round the neck in a similar manner. In this case a half-hitch had been placed, or accidentally caught in the cleft of the hoof, reducing the clearance to about twenty inches, the device having the effect of keeping the animals' heads close to the ground. He was of the opinion that the animals had been in that state for about two weeks. The accused stated that he had been engaged in farming operations since a boy. He had given £23 for one of the cowe, and flO for the other. He considered that one of the ropes produced had been tampered with and altered. Both ropes were the same when he put them on. He tied the ropes around their necks, and tie the straps around their legs to give about three feet clearance. Occasionally the straps were taken off. Both cows were bad junipers, and for this reason were put in a paddock, and tied in the manner described. Mr. llosley said that the evidence giveu by the inspector and Mr. Clissold left no doubt in his mind that the beasts were caused unnecessary suffering, and it did not matter what the circumstances were, such methods were not warranted. The defendant would be convicted of the offence, although it was not a case calling for a very severe penalty. A fine of £3, and costs, was imposed.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19240721.2.107

Bibliographic details

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 171, 21 July 1924, Page 8

Word Count
364

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 171, 21 July 1924, Page 8

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 171, 21 July 1924, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert