CRUELTY TO HORSES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 70, 22 March 1912, Page 7

CRUELTY TO HORSES.

S.P.C.A. TAKES ACTION. On the information of Inspector Seed, three persons— Ernest Bray, Samuel Bray, and Ivor Albert Thomas— were charged in the Magistrate's Court before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., to-day, with having, oh the Bth March, cruelly ill-treated horsea by working them white they were unwell. Mr. E. X Kirkcaldie appeared for the S.P.C.A., and characterised the cases in which the Brays were concerned as being very serious ones. • With regard to Samifel Bray, against whom two informations were laid, counsel said that repeated complaints had been made about his treatment of horses by residents of Seatoun, but, owing to defendant's personality, they were afraid to take further action. On Bth March Inspector Seed and Constable Taylor paid a visit to a quarry at Seatoun, where Bray was engaged in carting metal, and found that out of six horses being worked by defendant foui were in a shocking condition. Bray had been fined on previous occasions for similar offences, and counsel submitted that the only way to prevent a recur rence was for his Worship to impose a term of imprisonment. Mr. O'Leary appeared for defendant, and entered a plea of guilty. He stated that Bray had been called away from Wellington on business, leaving his horses in charge of an employee, who evidently did not know how to look after them, ac lie found on his return that they were all suffering from aore backs. Defendant, counsel submitted, was a poor man, and he had no option but to work the animass. However, ho had not. treated them callously, the saddle being padded and the vvoatide> 'li'bsned each day. Mr. Kirkcaldie here stated that, if necessary, he would call Inspector Send to prove that the saddles were not padded. Mr. Kirk'.'aldie also drew hia Worship's attention to the fact that the -mimals were dray/ing loads of metal two-thirds in excess of the regulation toad. Bis Worship remarked that the mere fact ot defendant being, before the Court for Similar offences on previous rxicasions showed that he did not realise his position with regard to the treatment oi animals. Hu was loath to se/id anyone to gaol unless the case wae a very gross on«. However, a* the other finw had not acted as a deterrent, he would impose substantial penalties. Defendant would be fined £5 on each change, with costs and solicitor's fee (£t 8s). Ernest Bray, who was unrepresented by eouriKel. WJ6 f, riyc i £3 ; w ; t h cwt)Sl an d »».hciUn- s fee (£1 8c) ; and Thomas, who tt-au only artisiu under instructions v-hen he v,oikcd tho animals, wab fined £2i \vith costs and fiolicitor'e fee 117b 6d).