ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A HORSE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7416, 30 May 1902, Page 3

ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A HORSE.

- A CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE. CHARGE DISMISSED... Anna MTeague was charged' this morning at the Magistrate's Court before Mr W: Minsoh, J.P., and Mr S. Lawrence, J.P.', that on May 17 she did: cruelly illtreat a horse by driving it while suffering front lameness and from sores on the withers. Mr Stringer appeared to prosecute, -and Mr Donnelly appeared* for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. William H. Zoueh,. Inspector for the Society for tho Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, stated' that he saw the horse standing in a spring cart in Lichfield Street, and from its look he gathered that it was suffering intensely.' It appeared wry lame. On taking the harness off the horse he also found that it was suffering i roan sores on the withers. . ' _■ Thomas Hill, veterinary surgeon, and Henry Taylor, Government veterinary surgeon, stated that the horse was suffering from ringbone and was. consequently lame, and that two old sores on the withers must also cause it suffering. It was, moreover, in poor condition and) quite unfit J op work. The muscles were wasting. For the defence Mr Donnelly submitted that even if the horse were suffering and unfit for use, it would be v unfair to convict the defendant, as she could not be. expected to see any defects as well as a surgeon I could. He stated that the horse could? trot very well. Three witnesses -were called to show that the horse had suffered for many years from a certain deformity in the leg, which did not necessarily mean ringbone. It *was well known that the horse was a good one and capable of doing 'hard work. The horse was brought to the Court by the defendant and the .Bench was asked to examine it. It was put through its paces before their Worships and went along at a fair trot, showing only slight signs of lameness. The Bench decided that it was quit© competent for the defendant to drive the horse. She could not be. expected to know that the horse was suffering, although it was not in a fit condition to work. tJnder the circumstances they did snot wi*h *° impose a fine and the case would be dismissed. In reply to Mr Donnelly the Bench statedl thai the defendant would not. be allowed costs.