CRUELTY TO COW

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 65, 14 September 1933, Page 18

CRUELTY TO COW

A FARMER FINED

UPPER HUTT CASE

On a charge of cruelly.ill-treating a two-year-old heifer by beating it with a piece of fencing wire, William Frederick Hume appeared before Messrs. J. O. Duff and P. Davis, J.P.s, in the Upper Hutt Court yesterday, aud was convicted and fined £1 and costs. . ;

Mr. P. K. Bryan appeared for Hume, and Constable C. Joss prosecuted.

Robert Henry Barfoote said that about 9 a.m. on August 27 he heard dogs barking and an animal bellowing,, and some filthy language; he knew the voice well. His wife said: "AYilliam Hume is ill-using a cow. At least three dogs are chasing the cow, and he is beating it with wire." He saw Hume chasing and beating the cow, which was trying to get away. The cow ran into the shed and out again, finally getting away. The cow came down the road and he stopped it, and found it to be a well-bred heifer belonging to Mr. Gill, who was often away. He examined the cow and saw there were blood stains on. the left side, marks where it had been hit, and a bite in the leg that'might have been done by a dog. He _ rang Constable Joss. Since then he had "found the cow to be highly excitable, and he had been unable to get near it. The tow was on the road when he - first saw Hume ill-using it. It was kept on the hill. Thomas Guy gave evidence of hearing dogs barking at, Hume's place, and shortly afterwards he saw the neifer with marks on it caused by blows.

Constable Joss gave evidence of the marks he had seen on the animal, and some strips of flesh that had been lifted. He interviewed Hume, and asked him if ifc was true that he thrashed cows with wire. He noticed a piece of wire hanging up, and Hume said he used it for "touching up the cows," • stating that it was better than a stick. The defendant picked up a piece of wire which he said was the one with which he had given the cow a. few hits when his' two dogs bailed it up. Hume made a statement to the effect that the heifer was always getting on to the road, and he put two dogs on to it to chase it away, and when it would not go he gave it one or two hits with a piece of wire. If there was blood on the cow, it might have been caused by the dogs biting the cow's tail, and the blood being swished over the body by the tail. Constable Joss said.the marks on the cow were such, as might have been caused by something similar to. wire. Mr. Bryan said the defence was a denial that any pain or suffering had been caused to the cow, and the object of hitting it was merely to get it out of tho way. ' jHume, in evidence, said he hit the cow once or twice with a piece of wire to get it out of the way of his cowß.and if there was any blood on its back it might have been caused by contact with a wire fence. He did not see any marks on the cow, but tried to get the Government Stock Inspector, who advised him to get an independent farmer witness to see the cow, but the fanner was unwilling to come to Court. He had the S.P.C.A. inspector but to see the cow, but the inspector was not in Court. ' ' Roy Herbert, who works for Hume, and job M. Benge, a farmer, were called by the defence as witnesses. Herbert said he was near Hume when he chased the cow away, and did not notice any cruelty. Benge gave it as his opinion that stripes on an animal's back could not heal in a fortnight. . . Mr. Davis said he felt there had been cruelty to the animal. The defendant may not have.thought there had been cruelty, but he admitted using wire, and that was a cruel thing.- A conviction was entered as stated above.