CRUELTY TO ANIMATS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12402, 16 January 1901, Page 5

CRUELTY TO ANIMATS.

LEAVING A COW UNMILKED. ■' A CONVICTION. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, Alfred Hulston was charged wita having, at the Addington Saleyards, on Jan., 3, ill-treated a cow. Mr Cresswell appeared 1 for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Mr William® for the defendant. William Miles, the inspector for the Society, said that, about 11 a.m. on Jan. 3, he saw at the saleyards a cow with the udder over-stocked, showing signs of great pain. She was standing with her legs wide apart, pawing at the ground.and locking round at her sides. The udder was hard and tense, and the milk was running slowly. He called- Mr Hill, veterinary surgeon,-to see the cow,' and then proceeded to milk it. The defendant then came up and admitted the ownership of the cc.w. He stated it had! not. been milked since the night before. It had calved on : the previous ■ Monday, and had some:trouble with the udder. Under this circumstance, witness considered the cow should have been milked every few hours, and should certainly not have been left since overnight. After about a gallon of milk had been taken, the ccw appeared much easier. It was not milked out. At the time the defendant had said that it was'necessary to overstock cows, in order to get a good price, and that the milking had taken 15s from the price. The practice of overstocking - cows was becoming most prevalent, and was - very cruel. John Jarman, honorary inspector of the Society, gave similar evidence. . Thomas., Hill, veterinary surgeon, also- gave evidence to the effect that the animal had been suffering great pain. AIT three witnesses considered'that, if the animal had been knocked about by another cow 1 that would not have produced the symptoms of pain exhibited. The defendapt himself stated 1 that the cow in ques-

tlon ■ Waived, a week ©airly an<3i had something , wrong with. her., udder, which felt ■hard. ’ The animal gave very little milk, and be had not considered it necessary to ‘ milk her on the morning of Jan. 3. He had not intended; any cruelty. That morning she had been roughly used by another cow, which accounted for her. fidgetyness. 'Kenneth Gosling, a' boy working for the defendant, also stated the cow’s udder was unnaturally hard. Thomas M’Callum said that he saw' about three quarts of milk taken freon the cow, and, she was then milked out. The cow was fidgeting because another cow had bunted her that morning. The niilk would run for a short time after somebody had been trying her. Frederick Brown, I)avid Webb and Robert Rutledge gave similar evidence. Robert Tubman, a cattle-dealer,, said ho did not think “it hurt a cow ” to leave it from eight o’clock one evening to* three or. four o’clock the next afternoon. He did not think that a oow wanted milking badly because the milk was running. Mr Bishop said the practice- of leaving cows, unmilked in order to gain a better price was decidedly a cruel one. The evidence showed conclusively that the animal had been in pain, and he held the cause was overstocking. There hadi been no intentional cruelty, but there had been cruelty. As it was only a test case,, the defendant would be convicted) and fined 5s and) costs, £3 2s.