Minister Fined For Cruelty

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31178, 30 September 1966, Page 3

Minister Fined For Cruelty

(N.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, Sept. 28. It was almost unbelievable that a man of such standing, position and profession could for his own gain permit, let alone cause, the suffering to an animal which had been related to the Court, Mr Stewart Hardy, S.M., said today at Hamilton Magistrate’s Court.

The Magistrate was referring to Te Uira Tueao Manihera, of Raglan, who was described by his counsel, Mr J. D. Bathgate, as a Methodist minister, a Justice of the Peace, and chairman of the Tainui Trust Board.

Manihera, who pleaded not guilty, was convicted on a charge of cruelly ill-treating a pig, and was fined £6O.

Mr A. V. Garrick, president of the Waikato branch of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, was the mformant of the charge that Manihera, between July 22 and August 2. at Raglan, cruelly ill-treated a pig. Mr T. R. Gillies, who prosecuted, withdrew a further charge that between July 22 and August 1 Manihera cruelly ill-treated a pig by cutting off its left leg. Leg Rotted

A neighbour of Manihera’s. James Gordon Forbes, said that on July 22 he went to Manihera’s place to feed a dog while Manihera was attending the funeral of King Koroki.

i He had found a pig tethered to a tree by a right leg. AnI other leg of the pig was in a rotted state. He cut the animal loose. ' Constable Neville Reeve Ballard, of Raglan, said that on the same day he was called ito see the pig. The left hind 1 leg of the animal was perfor- ■ ated from the lower leg to the I hoof and parts of the skin j were missing. The right hind I leg was swollen.

1 The next day he told Manihera either to get a veterinarian to attend to the pig, or to destroy it, Constable Ballard said. On August 1 another person told him about the pig. He telephoned Manihera to discuss the situation but Manihera became argumentative. Red and Raw

Constable Ballard said he went to Manihera’s farm and found that the left hind leg of the pig had been amputated. Manihera had told him that he had cut off the lower part of the leg with a knife and without any medical services. The stump of the leg was red. raw and swollen to about five inches in diameter.

“I told him to destroy the pig forthwith,” Constable Ballard said. “He appeared reluctant but promised to do so the next day.” Meanwhile a complaint had been made to the S.P.C.A. and the following morning he went to the farm accompanied by a veterinarian and an officer of the association, said the constable. The pig was still alive but Manihera destroyed it in his presence. John Southworth, veteri-

nary surgeon, said the pig was a pregnant sow in apparently good condition apart from its hind legs. He had tested the stump of the left leg and found it to be distinctly painful. The right leg had probably given only a minimum amount of pain.

To Mr Bathgate, Southworth said the cutting off of the left leg below the hock had probably caused no pain Mr Bathgate called no evidence for the defence. He submitted that the information laid was defective in that Manihera was not aware in what specific respect he was charged with committing cruelty to the pig. To Remember He said: “My client is entitled to know the- specific act of cruelty which is alleged against him.” Mr Hardy said adequate inI formation had been supplied to the court and to the defendant when he was notified of the offence. After Manihera had been convicted, Mr Bathgate said in mitigation that his client had generally felt that the pig had not suffered. He

I added: “This is somewhat of a technical offence.”

Manihera had been looking forward to the progeny of the sow because he wanted something to remember her by. He sincerely regretted his actions.