Caused Unnecessary Suffering to Heifer

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 210, 5 September 1944, Page 3

Caused Unnecessary Suffering to Heifer

A stock dealer named Hector David Harris, of Palmerston North, was prosecuted in the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday, the charges being that he failed to provide proper and sufficient feed for 23 head of cattle, and also caused unnecessary suffering to a Jersey heifer in that he failed to have a broken leg treated or the animal shot. W. A. Jacques, chairman of tho S.P.C.A. in Palmerston North, said that when he visited the paddock where the stock were, he saw practically no grass, which was reflected in the coudition of the stock. He went back there six days later and saw a cow down in a drain on the roadside in front of the same paddock. It was unable to get up through lack of strength so it was lifted out. Witness produced a photograph of the beast taken a day or two after. On a subsequent visit he saw the heifer with the broken leg. It was destroyed the next day by a veterinary surgeon. Witness produced photographs showing the state of the paddock and condition of the stock. He said he took hay to the heifer with the broken leg and it ate ravenously. There was no sign of hay having been fed it by anyone else. B. C. Mitchell, City Council ranger, said there was no feed in the paddock but he saw signs of hay having been fed out. The stock were in poor condition. ,Mr. J. Hill-Motion, veterinary surgeon, said he found the cow in the drain in very poor condition and he concluded it had been unable to get out because of being too weak. There was practically no feed in the paddock. He formed the opinion that the heifer with the broken leg had suffered its injury 10 or 12 days previously. Constable J. A. Hall said the paddock was in very poor order as far as grass was concerned. Harris told him he had fed out three bales of hay two days before. Being a stock dealer, he haC more animals on the place than he would have liked. Harris had also told him that he knew nothing of a heifer with a broken leg and if there was one in tho paddock, it must belong to someone else. Harris, in evidence, said that, as a dealer, he had stock coming and going all the time. When he heard about the cow in the drain he went to get it out but found someone else had done so. He took hay on that occasion and fed out. Some of the cows were in poor condition but he often bought animals in poor condition. He continually fed out but mostly at night as he was away all day. He did not know the heifer had a broken leg. He thought it was bruised only. Mrs. gave evidence as to the quantity of hay her husband bought during the year and the quantity fed out mostly at night.

E. G. Godsif said he had seen Harris feeding hay to his stock. Some of the hay was stored in witness’s shed.

The Magistrate dismissed the charge of failing to provide sufficient feed, stating that a dealer who bought and sold animals, frequently had some of them in poor condition. As regards the second charge, however, Harris had had enough experience with stock to know that the animal was badly injured. For that he would be fined £5 with £2 18s 6d costs.