A FINE FOR CRUELTY
■: Sir, —We wrote to you in the first place because we believed that £5 was. the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals, and we thought the law futile. Thanks to you, we now know that the law was not to blame for a Sentence soi light that it seemed flippant. We thiipc, though, that the law could he adjusted further. After all the-;law was designed-to protect the helpless, and to do this, would not forfeiture of; ownership.. _he,^a..more, powerful' corrective than fines or imprisonment? If parents ill-treat their children, the State assumes guardianship.' Those who depend for their subsistence on horses, dogs,- cows, pigs, and fowls would certainly hesitate to iH-use their beasts at the risk of forfeiture. So now we are all out-for a readjustment in legislature, and invite opinions, help, and advice.— Yours,-etc., ■ ' • ETHNE AND-MAURICE HAMBER. : June 11, 1941. • [This correspondence is now closed. — Ed., “The Press.”]
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19410613.2.71.4
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23354, 13 June 1941, Page 10
Word Count
153A FINE FOR CRUELTY Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23354, 13 June 1941, Page 10
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.
Log in