A LION TAMER CHARGED WITH CRUELTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 7002, 26 April 1884, Page 2 (Supplement)

A LION TAMER CHARGED WITH CRUELTY.

Hezeeiah Moscow, 20, described as a " lion tamer," employed at the East London Aquarium, in Bishopsgate, appeared at Worshipstreet Police Court in answer to a summons at the instance of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for having cruelly ill-treatsd a certain domestic animal to wit a bear. The defendant, a ."man of colour," gave an address at Eopeshead-court, Spitalfields. Ho pleaded "Not gnilty," and Mr. Blackwell, barrister, appeared on his behalf. Before any evidence was takon Mr. Blackwell made an objection to the Act under which the summons was takon out, as he contended that a bear placed in a menagerie was Hot a domestic animal. Mr. Hannay said he would consider the point later on. Eli Udden an officer of, the Society, then stated: At seven p.m. on Saturday, January 12, in consequence of instructions, I was in the East London Aquarium. I saw Moscow enter a cage in which were four bears. . The bears were in poor condition. One was almost entirely denuded of its coat, and seemed to be in a weak sickly state. The bears were made to jump over a board, and the defendant struck them with a drop thong whip with all hia force, to make them jump. I counted 60 blows. The naked bear appeared too weak to jump over the board, and dragged its hind legs. When struck the animals howled and moaned apparently in pain. When the jumping was over defendant reversed his whip, and commenced an attack on the largest bear giving it three crushing blows on the ribs with the butt-end of the whip. That made the bear moan. Ho then jumped on the bear's back rode it across the den into an adjoining apartment, and there again thrashed it with the butt end of the whip. JH e then went to the naked bear and dealt it three blows on the head with the end of the whip. A little while afterwards the performance was concluded and Moscow came out of the den and closed the gate. Witness then went near the bars and could plainly see the effects of the defendant's violence on the animals. One had wounds on its head and the others bore plain weals about their bodies. The witness, who gave his evidence very succintly, but was several times interrupted by Mr. Blackwell's constant objections, concluded by detailing his coversation with the defendant after the peformance, and with the proprietor, who said if he knew of any cruelty there he would at once stop it. Cross-examined by Mr. Blackwell: Did you go into the cage ? Witness : No,ldidn't; butlwillgo inifyou'll come as well (loud laughter). Mr. Blackwell (angrily) : Only answer my question. The witness said that he had do opportunity of seeing the bears except as an ordinary visitor to the menagerie. Why didn't yon ask the keeper to unbar the cage and let yon in? I would not go near a strange dog, much less a den of bears (laughter). Why " much less a den of bears" ? I don't see the sense of that. Counsel (impatiently) : Answer the question, sir. Well, it would be because I should not care to be bitten. Mr. Hannay here stopped the case abruptly, and said he had come to the conclusion that the statute did not regard a bear as a "domestic animal." Animals kept in captivity were doubtless worthy of protection by the statutes, but he could not find ont that they had yet been afforded it by Parliament. The present act was beyond doubt confined, in its' limits to what are known as " domestic animals," and it was impossible to hold that the bears in question I were fit to be classed as such. He therefore dismissed the summons. Mr. Blackwell asked for costs, but Mr. Hannay refused to allow these. The Society's officers intimated that it was very likely the Society woald appeal.