Magistrate's Court, Queenstown.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 1522, 12 March 1886, Page 5

Magistrate's Court, Queenstown.

Monday, Bth March, 1886.

(Before J. S. Hickson, Esq., R.M.)

Julius Wenkheim was charged, on the information of Sergeant \V. M'Leod, with having on the afternoon of the 27th February last, at his yards, Beach-street, QUeenstown, being guilty of cruelly torturing a horse. Mr Turton, for defendant) pleaded not guilty. The charge attempted to be proved was that defendant, who was docking a horse's tail, unnecessarily tortured the animal by simply using a butchers knife (without block), and using an improper piece of heated iron to sever the veins and stop the subsequent bleeding. Several witnesses were called. J. Johnson, who was asked to hold the horse for for defendant, deposed that the operation of cutting off the stump of the tail occupied 10 or 15 minutes. He had always seen it done instantaneously by an instrument specially made for the purpose. Witness left before the bleeding had been stopped. J. M'Mullin, a carter, deposed to passing at the time and saw part of the operation, but knew nothing about the proper mode of docking a horses' tail.

A. L. Cheyne, blacksmith, deposed that he had docked horses' tails. The proper way was with a knife made for the purpose, like the one produced —with which a horse could be docked ana fired in two minutes from beginning to end. Cross-examined—Docking was often done with a butcher's knife, if a block was used to cut it on. H. Richards, master mariner, deposed to passing at the time and seeiug defendant sawing away at the horse's tail with a knife, and considered defendant was cruelly torturing the animal. Ciws-examined—Defendant had not finished in 15 minutes after witness arrived on the spot. W. M'Leod, informant, corroborated the evidence of previous witnesses, and drposed to having laid the information, and to defendant writing letter (produced) pleading guilty.

For the defence, J. Wenkheim averred that he had had experiences with horses from his childhood, and had performed surgical operations on them for the last 11 years. Hi; pleaded guilty to cutting the horse's tail, but not guilty of cruelty. The process of cutting did not take half a minute, and the horse did not suffer. Cross-examined—lt did not take him more than half a second to dock the tail.

H. Anderson, a lad, thought it took about three minutes to dock the tail.

Cross-examined—Told his employer, Mr G Woodrow, that the horse bled a great deal.

The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said that the evidence was entirely against defendant, and he could do nothing but convict. A fine of 2Cs. would be inflicted, with costs £3 Is.

His Worship, in reply to defendant, said the alternative would be two months' imprisonment. CIVIL cases. T. S. Smith v. M. Riley.—Claim for £3 10s. 10d., professional services. Defendant, in person, pleaded not indebted, hut, after the taking of his evide: ce. judgment was given for amount claimed, with costs, £1 ss.

S. lietts v. N. Fredericksen.—Struck out. Same v. N. Vontnnzelman.— Claim for £2 35., goods supplied. Defendant pleaded indebted, and judgment was given for amount, with costs, £1 lis. 61.

Frederickscn v. Frederickscn (two cases). —Withdrawn bv consent.

Anderson v. Anderson. —Application by crmplaiuant (the husband) for an order reversing the decision given at previous fitting, whereby a protection order was granted to defendant (the wife). No appeal ante ; case struck out.