CRUELTY TO A SHEEP.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19853, 14 February 1930, Page 8

CRUELTY TO A SHEEP.

SEVERE BLOWS WITH SHOVEL. HEAVY PENALTY INFLICTED. (SPECIAL TO TH» PRESS.) TIMABIJ, February 13. In imposing a fine of £7 10a and costs amounting to £6 3s 6d, on George Joss; foreman of the Timaru Borough Council's gang at the water-race, Fairview, for having cruelly beaten a sheep at Fairview on November 21st last, the Magistrate (Mr C. R. Orr Walker, S.M.) made the following comment in the Timaru Magistrate's Court yesterday: "Although the circumstances are suspicious, it has "not been proved that the defendant ham-strung the sheep, but it is dear that he cruelly beat the animal. . . Somebody, at any rate, struck one of the sheep's legs with a sharp instrument, and this is an offence which merits nothing less than a term of imprisonment. "I'm afraid I can't accept his statement that he gently touched the sheep with his shovel. He was obviously angry, and allowed his temper to get the better of him. The defendant had a grievance against the informant ana took his revenge on a harmless animal. The information was laid by Frank Edward Raddon, farmer, of Fairview, who owned the sheep (Mr W. D. Campbell). and the defendant was represented by Mr L. E. Finch, who entered a plea of not guilty. In evidence, the informant said that as a result of information received, he had interviewed the defendant, who denied that he had knocked witness's sheep about. Defendant had informed him that he had thrown the sheep over the fence. Witness had found the sheep, which had one of the back legs cut in two. Subsequently the defendant had threatened to treat any sheep that broke into the water-race reserve in the same manner. A veterinary surgeon had ordered the destruction of the animal, and, when skinned, it was found to have been badly battered. Mr Finch: I understand you have had altercations with the defendant.

Witness: There have been no arguments, but the defendant hai» spoken to me about sheep breaking-into the reserve. Thomas Henry Richards, a Borough Council employee in the water-race gang, gave evidence that he had seen the defendant strike one of the sheep. He had Btruck several blows with a shovel.-

Mr Campbell: What happened then? —Th<3 sheep sagged down. Were they severe blows f —l should say so! Mr Finch (addressing witness): Did you' strike one of the sheep? Witness: No, certainly not. Where was the animal struck I—jOu the rump. William Hoare, another Council employee, said that three ewes and two lambs had broken into the water-race reserve on November 21st. The defendant asked witness to head off the sheep. Witness did so, and then saw defendant hit one of the sheep twice With his shovel. He then lifted the sheep and dropped it over the fence. To Mr Finch: He was about 1Q yards away when defendant struck the blows. Patrick Ropney, another Council employee, corroborated*the evidence of the previous witnesses. Waiter Smith, registered veterinary surgeon, said that he had. been shown a sheep'at Mt Baddoh's. farm. There were two cuts On one of the hind legs, the muscle of which was severed. The cuts would be caused by heavy blows from a sharp instrument. - To Mr Finch: The injury to the sheep's leg had not been caused either by a downward or glancing blow, but by a direct hit, as otherwise the muscle of the leg would not have been hit. George Gliddon, inspector for the S.P.C.A., said that he had visited Mr Raddon's farm on November 26th. He had seen the carcase of a sheep which was badly bruised. The sinew of *<ie right hind leg was severed. > In defence, Mr Finch said that he would ask for the dismissal of the serious damage charge against the defend* ant on the ground that no evidence had been produced to show that the sheep which had been destroyed was the one struck by the defendant. Further, the locality where the offence was committed had not been given with anv precision. A sheep had been hamstrung, aiyl them was no evidence to show that this was the animal that had been struck by the defendant. 'lt had also been stated' by the veterinary surgeon that the injury to the sheep's leg could not have been caused by a. downward blow such as had been delivered on the back of a sheep. The prosecution's case had not been supported by the evidence, which was to the effect that the defendant had delivered a downward blow.

In evidence-, the defendant said that he had given instructions for two or three sheep to be driven out of thd water-race reserve. As one went past he brought his shovel down twice on itß back. Witness then lifted the sheep over the fence. In answer to a question bv the Magistrate witness said that he put the shovel down >ently on the sheep's back. He denied that he had been in the least angrv at the time.