FOXHOUND AND FARMER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23707, 14 January 1939, Page 24

FOXHOUND AND FARMER

FINE FOR INJURING

“ MEANT TO KILL” LIMPING ANIMAL IN COURT (From Our Own Correspondent) (By Air Mail) LONDON, Dec. 21. Members and followers of the Axe Vale Harriers, including the master. Mr Hollingsworth, crowded the courthouse at Axminster, Devon, to hear the case against a poultry farmer accused of shooting one of the hounds said to have trespassed on his land. The farmer. Frederick Philip Poltock. of Woodhouse Hill, Uplyme. was fined £5 and ordered to pay £6 8s 6d costs It was stated by the hunt secretary that the Axe Vale hunted both hare and fox. The animal shot, which was brought into court limping, was a foxhound. Mr Poltock. it was said, used a softnosed bullet and fired from inside his house. He intended to kill the hound ''outright, and defending counsel remarked that, if he had done so. there could have been no prosecution under the Cruelty to Animals Act. When the case was called, one of the magistrates, Mr R. F. P. Ames, left the Bench. He explained later that he was interested in hunting. “Measures to Check It” Mr J. McGahey. prosecuting for the R.S.P.C.A., said that Mr Poltock wrote yn January 6, 1936, to the hunt secretary. enclosing a map of his land, on which he proposed to raise poultry. The letter read: “In the future, under no circumstances do I wish any part of the hunt to pass over any part of my land. This objection is intended to apply particularly to dogs Such forms of disturbances are detrimental to my interests.” That letter was not replied to. and in April Mr Poltock wrote: “ Yesterday your dogs were again crossing my land. One of them came close to the house where I was rearing some chicks. “ Please understand that this nuisance must cease immediately. If there is a recurrence I shall take measures to check it. which same will be most unfortunate for the animals concerned.” This was followed by two letters from Mr Poltock’s solicitors. In one it was stated that unless the hunt refrained from crossing his land steps would be taken by way of injunction. A reply was sent, stating that it was “an impossibility to make a fox run in a desired direction.” adding: “Will you assure Mr Poltock that we will do our utmost to prevent any riders entering the land! and also the hounds, so far as is humanly possible.” Fox Went, Towards Farm Mr McGahey said that from April, 1936, the hunt had scrupulously kept away from Mr Poltock’s land, but after a meet on December 3 last. the fox took the hounds in that direction, and two or three hounds did trespass. Mr Poltock was. seen on his land, and later a gunshot was heard. Soon afterwards a hound was heard yelping; it had been shot in the right hind-leg. The wound suggested that a dumdum bullet had been used. The animal was now still carrying its leg up. Mr H. E. Cuming, honorary secretary and huntsman of the Axe Vale Harriers, said that when the fox led hounds towards Mr Poltock’s land the pack was in full cry,' and it was impossible to keep control over all the hounds. “ Unreasonable Complaint ” Replying to Mr B. H. Waddy, defending counsel, who asked why Mr Poltock’s first letter was not answered, Mr Cuming said: “ It seemed to us such a futile and unreasonable complaint to make before he had any fowls on the ground. We get so many of these silly complaints, I am afraid my job would be occupied entirely by answering those letters. If we get a reasonable complaint we try to meet it.”

Mr Waddy: That Is the attitude you adopt—that anybody who happens to differ from you in opinion as regards fox-hunting is making a silly complaint?—Not necessarily. Did It no.t strike you that the second letter, complaining about your hounds coming near his chickens, called for a reply?—lf thev were creating any damage or nuisance. * You just ignored it on the same principle?—Yes. Mr Richard Quick, a farmer, who was out with the hunt, said that when he heard a shot it seemed to be muffled, as if a silencer were used. Mr Waddy: Was it the sort of report that would come from a rifle shot from inside a house? —Or a silencer. Soft-nosed Bullet

While Mr E. G. Conisbee, a veterinary surgeon, was giving evidence the hound was brought, limping, into court. It was placed on the table in front of the Bench, and Mr Conisbee pointed out the 'injuries. Police Constable Thomas gave evidence that Mr Poltock said to him: “I shot the hound. I did it to prevent further damage. I went to see if I could find it to put it out of its misery.” Mr Poltock, added the constable, said that he fired from inside the house. He produced the rifle and a soft-nosed bullet similar to the one he had used. Cross-examined, Thomas said that the object of a soft-nosed bullet was to kill much quicker. He did not see a silencer on the rifle. Giving evidence. Mr Poltock said that on December 3 he saw three or four hounds on each side of a .wire netting fence. One of them trying to clear the netting, jumped at it but was bounced off. The other hounds were trying to bore through under the netting.- He thought that if the animals’ efforts had continued the netting would have come down in a few minutes. With his rifle, which had a telescopic sight, he aimed at the heart of the first hound, intending to kill it outright.

Followed Hound’s Tracks

All the other hounds ran away. He followed the tracks of the wounded hound to the boundary of his property but failed to catch up with it. Asked if there were not a way of preventing the hounds doing damage, other than shooting from his window, Mr Poltock replied: “I could see no way of dealing with the matter apart from that.” . _ . In cross-examination, Mr Poltock was asked what he meant by his letter in which he said he would take measures which would be “most unfortunate for the animals concerned.” He replied: , , “I threatened to shoot the hounds with the hope that somebody in the hunt would hear of it, and take the point to heart and stop the nuisance. It was meant as a threat.” Mr McGahey: You did not mean to carry it out?—No. Having grievously wounded tnis animal, did you not think there was some duty on you to inform the hunt of what you had done?—No. Later. Mr Poltock remarked; I very much regret shooting the dog. I regretted it at the time.”

Jungle Parallel

Mr McGahey: You are a game hunter? —Yes. . If you shot a wild animal in the jungle, would you leave it to die in pain, or would you go and shoot it through the head at once?—Certainly, if I could get up to it. , , Mr McGahey questioned Mr Poltock about press interviews, in which he was stated to have said that he threatened to turn his rifle on the hounds of the Axe Vale Hunt if the hunt came across his land. Mr McGahey: You go on to say that “they must put up with the consequences’’?—lt is possible that I said something like that. Is the only interpretation to be placed on that expression of yours that having warned the hunt without effect you would wreak your vengeance on one of the hounds? —No. Mr Waddy observed that in a press interview a member of the hunt said: “If we could have got hold of Mr Poltock, I think he would have been nearly lynched.”