GROSS CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3197, 23 June 1915, Page 60

GROSS CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

SUBSTANTIALLY FINED What Senior-sergeant Cassells described as the worst case of cruelty, in the whole of his 25 years’ police experience came before Mr E. Rawson, S.M., at Hamilton on Thursday afternoon, when Thomas Grinter, road contractor, was charged on four counts with cruelty to animals (says the Auckland Star). Two drivers employed by Grinton named Arthur Wadley and Peter Staitich were also charged with ill-treating the animals. Sergeant Cassells stated that when he and Constable MTntosh visited Grihter’s farm at Hukunui, they found two horses suffering from raw', open shoulders, those on one of the animals being visible 350 yards away. In another paddock some distance away they came across two other horses, one of which must have suffered great agony, as it had a large festering sore, about five inches in diameter, on the wither, and wounds on both shoulders. The fourth horse was also unfit for work, though this case w r as not quite so bad as the others. The horses were in poor condition, showed signs of overwork, and had all been worked that day. The case was the most flagrant within his knowledge, and was not one for leniency in any way. During the hearing of the case solicitor (Mr James) said he had advised his client to enter a plea of guilty, but as defendant was unwilling to act on this advice, he (counsel) asked leave to withdraw from the case. Frank Glover, M.R.C.V.S.. said he had never seen a horse worked in a worse condition than the one with the sore on the -wither. All the horses were in quite an unfit condition for work. Grinter, in admitting the correctness of the evidence given by Mr Glover, asked for lenience on the grounds that he was a married man with two children, and had never previously been in court. The Magistrate said the case was certainly the worst he had ever had to deal with, and he must visit very heavy punishment on defendant. He was liable to a fine of £2O. with the alternative of two months’ imprisonment on each charge. Ho could not understand a human being treating animals in such an inhuman manner. Had it been proved that the horse with the sore wither had been worked with a saddle he would certainly have sent-defendant to gaol without the option. As it was, defendant would be fined £lO, and 7s costs, on each of two charges. £2, and 7s costs, on the third count, while on the fourth prisoner would be given the benefit of the doubt. Ho would also have to pay £1 Is veterinary officer’s fee. Wadley was fined £2, and 7s costs._ for illtreating one of the animals by driving it in an unfit condition. The charge against Stanich was dismissed.