Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ALLEGED CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

- THE SHOW DAY CASE. CHARGE DISMISSED. The Alagistrate. Mr G. Cruickshanfc, S.M., delivered his reserved judgment ia vho case R. W. Robson ( Inspector for tho Society for the Prevention of Cruelty ta Animals) v. Rankin Bros., dairy farmers, Lome, The following Ls the judgment in full;—

This is an information charging defendant with cruelly ill-treating two cows by allowing them to remain overstocked with milk, while being exhibited v at the Southland A. and P. Show last December. The charge is laid under the well-known section 7 of the Police Offences Act. by which it is made an offence to cruelly ill-treat any animal. The English Cruelty to Animals Act, 1549. and the more recent enactment which hn.s taken- its place, The Protection of Animals Act, 1311. both made it an offence to ill-treat an animal. The law in the dominion is thus, as far as this case is concerned, identical with the English Act. It is interesting to note that, in July. 1913, an information changing one Thomas Braithwaitc in words exactly similar to the above, was tried in Banbury, in England. The facts wore that the vendor of.a cow had driven it, unmilked, miles to market, and there offered it for sale as a flrsl-class milker. When the Inspector interfered, the cow had been unmilked for 19 hours. Conflicting evidence *vas given by rival vets, as t o' the pain involved in such a treatment. The Justices decided that it was a case of cruelty, but they dismissed the charge, holding that a local old custom permitted such a practice. On appeal, the Divisional Court decided that the old established custom could not over-ride the statute law, and remitted the case to the Justices with a direction to convict the owner of the cow. The case is reported as Waters v. Braithwaitc, 110 Law Times, p. 266. This case did not decide that it is ill-treatment to leave a cow unmilked. The English magis trates held on the facts before them that in their particular case the cow was in pain, and the High Court was bound by that finding. In each case the fact of pain being inflicted must be proved. A similar charge was laid against Air Rankin a year ago, but was hot prosecuted. The evidence for the informant shows that the Inspector and two constables saw these cows on the show ground between 12.30 and 1.30. They all say that the cows had distended udders and milk was oozing from some of the teats. The evidence of pain is that' one of the cows was moving from oue leg to the other, and both seemed uneasy, and one kept looking round. The evidence for the defence was more voluminous. The defendant, who is a noted Ayrshire breeder, who has acted as Judge; at all leading shows in the dominion and also in Sydney, says he took these cows which were valuable pedigree stock to the show .ground the day before. The cows were milked at 7 a.m. and noon, and at 5.30 that evening. The next morning they were not milked until after being paraded in the show ring before the Judge about noon. The defendant and Mr Kelly say they milked them before 12.30. They deny any suggestion of overstocking or pain. Mr Rankin says that the cows were only 16 hours' unmilked, which considering that the cow* had been put into new and unaccustomed surroundings would not cause the udders to be more stocked than they would be in 12 hours if the cows were in their familiar habitat.

Mr Parlane, from Canterbury, who judged the milking Ayrshires at the Show, said in his evidence that all the cows were paraded before him. They walked round first so that he could judge their outline. He declares if these cows liad been in pain they would have shown it in this walk round. If the udders had been over-stocked'they would have hung badlv, and it would have been noticed .at once; The shape and hang of the udder or vessel is the strong point in an Ayrshire cow. A perfect vessel scores 37 points of the total ’marks. In a good cow the outline shows a perfectly straight back and a straight belly line dipping to the rear. The udder should not drop below tin's line. The judge says he felt the udders of each co-w, and is satisfied there was no over-stocking or pain or inflammation. Mr DesChler, who was steward with the judge, and who had instructions from the Directors to watch closely for any over-stocking, and also Mr Ma-rshall, who was marshal of this class, corroborates what the judge says. Some prominent dairy farmers say that it is unlikely there was any pain in such a case.. Of course, the fact that a farmer says that a certain thing doesn’t hurt a cow, is not exactly conclusive. The cow knows better than the farmer whether it hurts or not. and it is only by the persistent efforts of humane societies that a great many acts which were at one time looked upon as the ordinary and proper thing to do are now forbidden as cruelty to animals. To deprive a cow of her calf and then not milk her at regular intervals, must cause a cow inconvenience, and when continued for a lengthened period must 1 cause actual pain. Bnt here the time since last milking was 16 hours. In many farms the over-night period must be always 11 hours. It is not the non-milking of the cow, but the ill-treatment of the cow that is the offence, and such ill-treatment must be proved, and non-milking may or may not ne evidence of such ill-treatment.. Mr Miller was- the only vet. called. He unfortunately did not see the cows, and he savs he could not say if there was any pain without seeing them. He seemed to suggest it was more a case of a cow suffering inconvenience and discomfort than, actual pain, and says that the cow could, ease herself by letting some milk drip from the teats. The weight of testimony is entirely with the defendant, and in my opinion, no case of cruelty has been made out, and the information is dismissed. Mr Armstead, who appeared for tn« defendants, asked for costs for Mr Parlanc (the judge), who had come from Canterbury to give evidence, for the veterinary surgeon (Mr Miller) and for counsel but not for other witnesses. Mr Haggitt, for the S.P.C.A., asserted that, as the Society had been actuated by humane principles, there should be no costs. If costs were to be paid by the Society, it would be penalising a number of humane people who would have to pay them, as the Society was not in strong financial position. Xo costs were allowed.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST19160212.2.46

Bibliographic details

Southland Times, Issue 17655, 12 February 1916, Page 6

Word Count
1,144

ALLEGED CRUELTY TO ANIMALS Southland Times, Issue 17655, 12 February 1916, Page 6

ALLEGED CRUELTY TO ANIMALS Southland Times, Issue 17655, 12 February 1916, Page 6