ALLEGED CRUELTY

Southland Times, Issue 22280, 22 March 1934, Page 9

ALLEGED CRUELTY

TREATMENT OF A HORSE. INFORMATION WITHDRAWN. A charge of wilfully causing unnecessary suffering to a chestnut filly by flogging it with a whip was preferred against Leslie Francis Herbert Jones (Hedgehope), Albert Sands (Dunsdale) and John Mcßae (Dunsdale) before Mr E. C. Lewey, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday. The defendants, who were all represented by Mr Eustace Russell, pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant Packer said that the three defendants were seen at McRae’s property on the day in question when Jones used a stockwhip while his companions held the animal. The horse was helpless and fell through exhaustion. Jones’s excuse was that the horse kicked him, but anyone should know when breaking in an animal that it is liable to kick. It was for the Court to say whether any unnecessary pain had been inflicted upon the animal. Constable Murphy, of Mataura, gave evidence that on Sunday, February 4, when at Mcßae's homestead he saw the three defendants in a paddock adjoining the house. They had the horse tied up with a head stall and a long rope. Mcßae and Sands were holding the end of the rope. Jones had a whip which he was cracking and the horse circled round. After a while Jones attempted to throw a rope over the head of the animal, but was unsuccessful. He then got a long pole and moved the rope along at the end of it. The horse became terrified and reared. Jones struck the animal twice on the head with the pole. Later he secured the rope on the body of the animal. Witness and Constable Pearse found the horse soaking with black sweat and foam and unable to rise. Witness spoke to Jones and the defendant said the beast had become savage when the head stall was being put on. The acts complained of occupied in all an hour. To Mr Russell: Jones did not hit the animal with the whip; he was. just cracking it. Witness would be within 50 yards of the occurrence and did not interrupt, although the alleged cruelty continued for an hour. Jones had. not had the courage to go near the animal and that was how the trouble arose. Witness did not see the horse strike Jones with his forefoot. Counsel: Did Jones show you any marks on his face? Witness: No. Was the rope round the horse on the ground?—No, he had taken it off. Did you say that if he let the horse go there would be no charge laid?—No, the charge was never mentioned. Were there any marks on the animal? —I did not see any. Do you think that whatever was done was actuated by a deliberate intention to be cruel?—He must have known when he struck the horse that he was inflicting pain. Corroborative evidence was given by Constable Pearse, of Winton, and by Senior-Sergeant Packer. The senior-sergeant said it was quite clear that Jones was striking the horse severely with the stick from the side. Defendant did not complain to witness about the animal having made any marks on his face. Counsel: You did not speak to Jones about his conduct? Witness: I had no occasion to do so. Why not?—Because I had men to do

it. And you saw the whip actually used-

on the mare from half a mile away?— From half a mile onwards, I said. I was coming closer all the time.

Counsel: Yet your own witnessessay the whip was cracked behind the animal and not on it. Sergeant Abel also gave his version of the matter., Mr Russell submitted that the evidence of the police’s own witnesses quite contracted the charge of causing suffering by flogging the horse with a whip. It was not a case where there was wanton cruelty for the purpose of gratifying any morbid desire. The Magistrate held that the police could not succeed on the information in the form in which it was laid. Counsel was not prepared to consent to an amendment and the senior sergeant, stating that the matter could be brought on again after Easter, withdrew the