ALLEGATION OF CRUELTY

Taranaki Daily News, 13 September 1934, Page 14

ALLEGATION OF CRUELTY

FOOD AND WATER FOR COWS NEW PLYMOUTH WOMAN IN COURT. LENGTHY HEARING UNFINISHED. The prosecution was continued at the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court yesterday of Rose May, married woman, Westown, for allegedly failing to supply proper and sufficient food and water to five cows and two yearling heifers belonging to her and grazing on a farm Mangorei Road leased by her to William Edward Walker. The date of the charge was August 10, 1934. Mr. W. Middleton represented the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, whose, district inspector, Mr. Benjamin Tippins, laid the information. Mr. P. Grey appeared for Mrs. May. The . hearing occupied the best part of Monday and the entire attention of the Court yesterday. It has been adjourned to September 24. Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., presided. . Four grounds of defence were adavnced by Mr. Grey for Mrs. May, who mentioned that mens rea (guilty knowledge) was an essential element in the type of offence alleged. The first ground was that Mrs. May was not the owner of the stock and had consistently denied that she was. The second ground was that if she were held to. be owner, 1 which was denied, she had no knowledge of the condition of the cattle on or about or prior to the date of the charts, and if it wsre held that she had that knowledge then she had been forbidden entry to the farm by the lessee. Walker, both in September, 1933, and on or about August 2, 1934, just prior to the charge. A third defence was that on the acquisition of the knowledge of the sick cow, Mrs. May immediately did all she could be called upon to do, until the lessee objected to her going on to the farm, in that she had got a veterinary surgeon, went to the farm and made gruel for the cow and sent a load of hay there—all <jn August 2—and on August 4, as the invoice showed, a new cow cover was purchased and sent to the farm. On August 2 objection was raised to Mrs. May going on the farm. The fourth ground of defence was that previously Mrs. May had done more than her duty in sending four loads of hay to the farm in or about January 1934, despite the objection of Walker, which he had in effect admitted. EVIDENCE OF DAUGHTER. Mrs. Rosannah Emily Alice Aldridge, a daughter of Mrs. May, said Walker had accused her. mother and her of trespassing when they visited the farm in September, 1934, to inspect a bull purchased by Walker with Mrs. May’s money. Walker said he would get the axe. if they did not leave the property. The stock, in question was given to Walker on December 2, 1933 when Walker had asked for something in writing to indicate that the cows were his. Mrs. May had gone to the farm on August 2 because Mrs. Walker had called to say a cow was sick and that Walker was in town “boozing.” That night Walker had objected to Mrs. May going on the farm as Walker was the lessee. Her mother had bought the stock for Walker to replace Walker’s stock which had been seized by the man from whom Walker had purchased them. On each occasion that Walker came to the house he was under the influence of liquor, Mrs. Aldridge alleged. Her father had objected to this. Her mother could not write because of failing eyesight, said Mrs. Aldridge to Mr. Middleton. Her mother had not written some of the letters on the Court file nor did witness write them all herself even though the letters were written on the family’s bill-heads. She once wrote to a veterinary surgeon about a sick cow.. The letter produced appeared to be the same as one produced and the signature the same as on another letter which she had previously denied writing. She did not now remember whether she wrote this second letter or not. Mr. Middleton: I do not think you are being quite frank with us. It is strange you should remember all the happenings between Walker and yourself and not these important letters. ■j Pressed about the second letter and another, Mrs. Aldridge maintained she did not remember the letter. She had not talked the case over with her

mother. There would be no harm in this, the Magistrate informed Mrs. Aldridge.

REFERRED TO COWS AS WALKER’S

Another document dated December 2, 1933, which’ 1 Walker denied all knowledge of, had not been crumpled up at any time to give it an appearance of age, said Mrs. Aldridge in reply to Mr. Middleton. It had not been made out recently. Though Sergeant "S. G. Clist and Mr. Tippins would deny it, she had referred to the cow as Walker’s on the day they called. They may not have heard her say so; she took no pains to ensure that they Heard her. She did not know of her mother’s reason for sending the hay to the farm on August 2. She had never heard of the Walkers’ coming to the house to complain of the condition of the stock, to ask for food for them, to request that arrangements be made for drinking facilities for the stock or to ask for cow covers. She had placed the memorandum of December 2 in a box along with other documents, receipts etc., said Mrs. Aldridge to Mr. Grey. She often had occasion to get things from the box. On one occasion she had placed the contents back in the box hurriedly. The memorandum as well as a copy of it were written by her on two old pieces of paper in the presence of May, Mrs. May and Walker. It was a genuine document and written on the date it bore. She did not recollect at the time of Mr. Tippins’ visit that she had the memorandum, said Mrs. Aldridge to the magistrate. She remembered Mr. Tippins saying he had seen the lease. He might not remember saying this. Albert Richard May, husband of defendant, remembered going to the farm with a load of hay on August 2. His wife had purchased oatmeal that day with the object of making gruel for the sick cow. When he took the hay he noticed a shed half-full of hay. The stock followed the lorry to get at the hay. Some was thrown off for them. Mrs. May made gruel for the sick cow which was made

warm and comfortable with a rug, sacks and hay. He was a retired baker who did a little work occasionally for the good of his health, May replied to Mr. Middleton. He had nothing—his wife had what little they had. He did not object to his wife giving the stock to Walker when their own son-in-law was on relief work. His daughter and son-in-law were not in straitened circumstances; they were dependent on himself and his wife to an extent. The hay was given to the Walkers out of goodness of heart and May paid the cartage. Mr. Grey: Has charity become a crime? Mr. Middleton: It gives rise to some astonishment.

The defendant, Rose May, said the Walkers had called at her home one morning. Both were weeping. Mrs. Walker said they had bad news. She asked Mrs. Walker if one of the children had died. Mrs. Walker replied: “No, it is worse than that” and stated that their cattle had been seized. Walker asked if she would buy him some catt.e, saying it would make a man of him if she did. She bought him cattle that day at Inglewood. The cattle were Walker’s from the start. She went to the farm one day when Walker told her she was trespassing and if she did not leave he would get the axe. She ran off the farm.

Mr. Grey: I cannot imagine you doing that, but you left the farm?

Mrs. May: Yes. Proceeding Mrs. May said one day Mrs. Walker came to the farm crying and saying that a cow was sick and her husband had gone to town “boozing.” On another occasion when hay had been trken out Walker had been in a great rage; he had accused her of trespassing and said she could sing and whistle for the rent. She made gruel for the sick cow, but the same night Walker had come to her place and hammered on the door. When answered Walker had told her to keep off the farm, and leave the cows alone. She told Walker that he had gone far enough and if he did not pay the rent she would put the baUiff in. As soon as Walker got it in writing that the stock were his he became very rude. Besides the stock she had given the Walkers groceries and money—she had felt sorry for Mrs. Walker. Sergeant Clist was a gentleman, but Mr. Tippins was abrupt to her when they called.