ANIMALS IN PAIN.

Otago Witness, Issue 3889, 25 September 1928, Page 75

ANIMALS IN PAIN.

It seems probable that New Zealand’s legislative machinery will be set in motion as a- result of a dog being severely injured by a Roslyn cable ear. The, accident led to complications which were discussed at the meeting of the Otago for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on Tuesday. A report by a solicitor on the question of killing animals in pain was considered, and as a result it was decided to write to the Minister of Justice asking that new legislation be framed.

Miss Porteous had told him, the secretary reported, that the dog had been run over on the steep part of the hill near the overbridge. The dog had been carried some distance before it was known that it was under the car. It was found badly injured in such a position that it was impossible to extricate it from the mechanism of the car without delay Miss Porteous suggested that the car should be jacked up, but as the car was on a slope that course was impossible. The gripman wanted to run right over the animal, but Miss Porteous objected and forbade the gripman to kill it until a veterinary surgeon and a police constable had been procured. Eventually a constable arrived and killed the suffering animal. In reply to a request from the Tramways Union for a direction as to what a tram driver should do under similar circumstances, the secretary continued, he had written to Mr Douglas Ramsay for a legal opinion. Mr Ramsay had stated that the question really was: What should any. person do with an animal found to be injured and in a_.condition of pain? By the Police Offences Act it was a statutory offence to cause any unnecessary suffering by “ wantonly or unreasonably doing or omitting to do any act,” so that it might be argued that it was cruelty, and therefore an offence under the Act not to put an animal in pain out of its misery. It had, however, been held in England that a mere omission to alleviate suffering was not an act of cruelty with.n the meaning of the Statute, and that although it was inhuman cruelty not to kill an animal in pain mere passive cruelty of that kind was not an offence under the Act. There was nq statutory provision authorising a person to destroy an animal in pain, and any person taking upon himself the destruction of an animal in such circumstances might render himself 'iable to an action for damages at the suit of the owner, in which case he would require to be able to justify his action by proving conclusively that the animal had been hopelessly injured, as a worthless mongrel often acquired an extraordinary value in the eyes of its owner after its death at the hands of a stranger. Provision was, however, made by section 13 of the Police Offences Act for the destruction of injured animals on the authorisation of a magistrate or justice of the peace. The obvious objection to this procedure was that an injured animal might suffer a great deal of pain before the authorisation prdVided by the section was obtained. After giving the matter full consideration his opinion was that if the animal was injured obviously beyond any hope of recovery the dictates of humanity demanded it should be put out of its misery without delay. But the person who undertook this duty ought to strengthen his position by obtaining as much evidence as was available to prove ' (if afterwards it was found necessary) that the animal had been so injured that death must have ensued. In all other cases the procedure laid down in section 13 of the Act ought to be adopted. Sir George-Fenwick moved: —“lhat a copy of the letter be sent to the Minister of Justice with the request that he should have a clause inserted in the Act that would meet the circumstances of the case.” “ It is quite obvious that something must be done,” he stated. “ Nobody will take the responsibility of killing an animal although it may be suffering great pain.” The motion was carried.