CRUELTY TO A HORSE.

Evening Star, Issue 12943, 5 May 1908, Page 6

CRUELTY TO A HORSE.

DRIVER PINED; EMPLOYER ESCAPES. At the City Police Court this morning a case of cruelty to a horse used in a baker’s delivery cart was heard by Mr Widdowson, S.M. _ Informations were laid by the police against the driver (Foreman) and his employer (Congalton). The cases were heard separately. Foreman conducted his own case, and Congalton was defended by Mr Payne. Sub-inspector Norwood prosecuted. The charge against the driver, Charles Walker Foreman, was that of ill-treating a horse at Caversham on Monday, April 27, by working it when in an unfit condition. Defendant pleaded guilty to driving the horse, but not guilty of cruelty. Martin John M'Donnell, blacksmith, of Caversham, said that ho saw the mare on April 27-. It was girth-galled on botix sides, and seemed very weak. John Fairlie, gardener, said ho saw the horse in a bilker’s van on April 27. It was cruelty to use a horse in that condition. Constable Herd, of Caversham, said he watched for the horse on Monday, 27th, in consequence of complaint made' to him on the previous Saturday. He spoke to defendant about the horse’s condition, and defendant said he was going to leave his employer’s service that night, as having to drive such a horse was " getting oii his nerves.” Defendant stated to him that the horse was so weak that he could not get it out of a walk, and that it had dropped with him that morning. Witness rang up defendant’s employer, who promised not to work the horse.

Defendant said that on the Friday, when, ho first drove the mare (which had previously been out at grass), the gall marks were there, but as they were not bleeding ho did not at first notice them. He noticed them at the end of the day’s work, when they were bleeding. liis Worship: Why did you not refuse to work this horse?

Defendant: Am I to throw away my bread and butter, your Worship? His Worship; It is better than coming hero on such a charge. Defendant said he did his best to alleviate the mare’s pain by tying back the girth. He continued that he did not want to work the mare on the Monday, but it was a choice between her and a chestnut which had a habit of stopping suddenly and going down. It had gone down six times with him and thrown him out of the cart. Consequently he refused pointblank to drive the chestnut, and had to take the mare.

His Worship intimated that ho would hear the case against Congalton before coming to a decision. Alexander Congalton was then charged with cruelty to the horse in causing it to be worked in an unfit condition. Ht pleaded not guilty. Mr Payne contended that there could be no such charge laid under the Police Offences Act, which only dealt with the person who ill-treated a horse. Sub-inspector Norwood contended that both driver and employer were equally liable under the section. The employer knew what the driver was doing. His Worship overruled Mr Payne’s objection. Cnarles Foreman, cross-examined by Mr Payne, said that in consequence of an accident with the chestnut horse on Thuisday he need the marc in question (winch belonged to a man named Warrin-gton) on the Friday. He did not object to work the mare on Saturday, being told by “ the boss ” and another carter that she would be all right if the girth and bellyband were tied back so as not to touch the galls, though it was impossible to keep the girth off fhc sores going down hill. On the Monday Gongalton saw the mare, and said to witness; “You had better woik ‘Ginger’ (the chestnut) to-day.” Witness remised, saying he would never work Ginger again. Congalton then acquiesced in his putting the mare in again. To Mr Norwood : “ Ginger ” got on my nerves so much that my wife said to me on Monday morning “ If you have to drive ‘Ginger’ to-day you come straight back home.” Witness continued that he left Oongalton’s employ on Monday night, and Congalton had to go round with the bread himself on Tuesday. His Worship: it is sometimes wise to take your wife’s advice. Witness: If I had I would have left Congalton’s employ six weeks ago, when “Ginger” first shot me out of the cart. Defendant Congalton then went into the box, and said that ho was a baker, of Mornington. Foreman had let three of his horses down. The mare was lent by Warrington, sen., father of_one of his drivers. He did not wish the mare to be used on Monday, but did not think she • would suffer if the girth was kept back off the galls. The owner (Warrington) had previously worked the mare on the Mornington hills in a spring cart, and had used her since April 27 m the same class of work. Foreman had only to work her on the flat—a comparatively easy task. He knew that Foreman was only waiting for a chance to “leave him in a .mess,” .-md as

a matter of fact Foreman did so by quitting on the Tuesday. Mr Norwood: Was not that because you insisted - on him using disabled horses? Defendant: I did not want hijn to take the mare, but I was farced into allowing him because I was afraid he would leave me on the spur of the moment, which he afterwards did. Dngald Bailey, employed as carter by Congalton, testified that “Ginger” was a good horse. Charles Warrington, another of Oongalton’s drivers, said that- there was not a better horse to drive than the chestnut Foreman was afraid of it. Had the mars been properly harnessed and driven she would not have been galled. There was a growth on one side, and the girth bad been put on over it. causing the sores. Warrington, sen., owner of the marc, said she was as good as over worked in Dnnedin. His Worship said that with regal'd to Conga!ton the evidence was not sufficient to bring him within the reach of the law, though he may have shown an error of judgment in allowing the mare to bo worked on the Monday. He would therefore dismiss the case against CongaJton. In regard to Foreman (the ease was somewhat different. He manifested a certain amount of recklessness in the way he dealt with these horses. He would convict Foreman and fine him 20s with easts (235).