SHOCKING CRUELTY.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4489, 17 October 1901, Page 6

SHOCKING CRUELTY.

ALLEGED INJURY TO A COW. A case of heartless cruelty to a cow was brought before the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, when John Collier (a son of Charles Collier, proprietor of wool-scouring works on the Island Bay road) was charged, on the information of tlie; Inspector pf the S.P.C.A Society, with cruelty to a cow, the property of Daniel Anderson, an expressman.. Mr B. B. Williams conducted the case for the prosecution, Mr Dalziel appeared for the defendant and Sub-Inspector Wilson watched the case on behalf of the police. The cow was described by the owner as a quiet animal, which any of his boys could milk without the aid of a leg. 1 rope. He described the condition of the cow when she arrived home one day. The whole of one side was a mass of blood and hair. At the present time tne side injured was perfectly bare of all hair, and was quite black. Mr Seed, the Inspector of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, gave evidence to receiving information in respect to the oow. He visited the place of the accused. . There ho obtained a sample of a caustic fluid, which was used in the fellmongcry works for removing hair from hides. He found one side of the cow completely bare of all hair. Again he visited Collier's place with two men (W. J. Smith and T. Houldey), who stated that the defend. ' ant was the person they saw throw a liquid on the oow. There was, he said, white liquid stains on the fence where the cow had jumped oyer. W. J. Smith said hie was driving a dray with a load of gravel past Collier’s place. He saw the defendant throw some liquid, which had the appearance of water, on to the cow, which he recognised as belonging to Anderson. Tho cow immediately jumped over a - fence and rushed down the road like a mad animal. The Colliers came out to the gate and watched the action* of the cow- When the liquid was thrown over the cow the animal was jammed up in a corner. , . . , . T. Houldey, who was driving a dray in front of Smith, corroborated the latter’s evidence, except that he said: the oow was. moving around when the liquid was thrown over it. - Tho defendant denied that he threw anything over the cow. _Ho ana hx» brother had been told by their father to drive two cow» out of their place, and m doing so, he picked up an old tin (pro. duced) which had been used for bailing out a boat, and threw it at the cow. He then set dogs on. the cow. He knew nothing about the chemicals -used in tne works,'as he was always engaged the washing of the wool. Tbo can might have contained water, or acid, or any. thing else. ... , , , Charles Collier, father of the.defendant, said that oowa were continually coming into his place. The only way the oow could have been affected _ by chemicals was in coming into contact with drums of chemicals which wore stored in the stable, the door of which was 16ft. open, 'mere was no stun pro. , pared at the time which could Imw injured the cow, apart from a half-bottle •of sulphuric acid lying outside Hie abed. To Mr Williams : The cows had been a nuisance for thirteen years. They had always “dogged’’ them out. He examined the vegetation about where the can was thrown, and. there w«e »®tbing td show that a strong liquid had been Bench remarked that a cow had been burned before, and that he, the witness, had admitted that the present case was the second c«*siou on which a cow was injured. He w- the only man , in tho vicinity who was known to have possession of liquids which could have caused the injuries. .... - Thomas Collier, brother of the defendant, s aid he saw his brother throw tho tin produced. ■■ ■ , Mr Dalziel contended that *s the defendant was charged with Wilfully, illtreating the oow, wilful and malicious cruelty on his part should be proved. Mr Williams maintained that it was not necessary to prove intentional cruelty, and quoted authorities in support of this contention. The case should rest on tho facts* . , The Bench deliberated en the case, aj’d eventually decided to visit the pro* perty of the Colliers, where tho aueged cruelty took place. They were aeoomparied by Smith (the drayman who saw , the defendant throw the liquid) «iid Collier, uenri ... , . The decision in the ease will be gives at 9.30 a.m. to-day.»