CRUELTY TO A HORSE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10197, 5 July 1911, Page 4

CRUELTY TO A HORSE.

EXEMPU'HY FT.'SK. At the Magistrate's Cosirt at llangiora yesterday, before Mr T. A. B. IJailey, S.M., and Mr I:}. 11. Good, J,]/., John W. M'Lean, aged nineteen, was charged that lie did, bet'.veon April 7 and May 28, at Scfton. cruelly illtreat a horse, the property of George Kinley. Thi' inlonnation ■ was laid by Mr W. H. Zoueh, inspector for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Society, for whom Mr Johnston appeared, and Mr Van Asch apjioared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Defendant was charged with the o'ffenco on the previous Court day., but owing to conflicting evidence the case was dismissed without prejudice. George Kinley stated that be lent defendant a horse, which he used tor' eight weeks and returned on May 28. The horse, a hack, was in fail' working condition when defendant took it away, bub when it came back it had a large running sore on the withers with proud flesh .standing up two inches. There was another bad sore on the horse's back lower down. "Witness considered the sores to have been caused by a saddle. Defendant stated that the sores were caused by the horse rolling. Constable M'Coruiaek gave evidence regarding the horse's condition, and described the sores. W. Jameson, farmer, T/eithneld. stated that after a meet of the hounds at Leifhfield about two months ago he saw defendant riding homewards oa the horse. Defendant pulled up. and they were conversing for live or ten minutes. He did not notice anything wrong with the horse, but remarked to defendant that the saddle, was low on the horse's withers. Witness saw defendant last Wednesday evening at the Sefton railway station. They spoke about the case heard the previous day. Defendant said witness's name had been brought'up. Nothing further was said about it. Witness did not ask | what was said about him. j

Mr Bailey: Do you wish us to believe, that you had not the curiosity to ask what was said about you? Witness: Yes. Mr Bailey: 1. for one, don't believe you. Mr Johnston then received permission to treat the witness as a hostile one. and after he had been cautioned to be truthful he admitted that defendant told him that he had stated in evidence that he only passed the time of clay to witness and rode on when he saw him after the hunt, and he asked witness to say the same if the case came on again and lie wa„s called to give evidence. He replied that that was " all rot," he would speak the truth. W. H. /ouch stated that the sores on the horse could not hove been caused by anything but a saddle, and the horse must have been ridden live or sL\ Units to make (hem as bad as

j they wore. After the ca.se on the proI vious Tuesday lie w.-mt in defendant's place n.t Seitou and found two saddles produced, (hit with a small bloodstain i on tiie pad covering rhe tree he found I in the stable; the other, with a, broken I tree and a considerable, amount, of ! blood and matter stains on it, eorres- | ponding with the position nf the sores, ! together with a bloodstained towel, he | found under a govso fence some disj tanee from the stable. '!'..(.'. Lidice, veterinary surgeon, described the wound.*: on the horse, and stated that in his opinion they were j caused by a bad-fitting saddle. It was absurd to say that the horse had not j been ridden after it was first injured, j and it was not likely the injuries were : caused by the, hor.se rolling. ; For the defence, Mr Van A,-eh oonj tended that, it would have to be proved | that defendant actually used the, saddle that was supposed, to Lave ! caused the wounds, before he could be I convicted, and also t.'iat before a per- ! son could be-convicted of cruelty guilty I knowledge of causing such was esseiiI tiai. Defendant stated that the first time he saw anything wrong with the horse was the day following the hunt. A sore formed and got worse, lie did not ride the horse after the day of the. hunt, and he dressed the wound. The saddle with, the small stain was the one he used. He denied over having used the other saddle on the horse, but conk! give no explanation as to how the marks on it corresponded with the sores. He admitted having' a conversation with .in meson, but denied having said anything about the horse's condition. Mr jiaiioy, alter reviewing: the. main points of the evidence, said that lie was quite convinced that defendant rode flie horse when it was suffering from the sores and thereby knowingly inflicted great cruelty. The saddle, with, the broken tree was a perfectly barbarous thing to put on a, horse. The ca.se was a. very bad one, and defendant might think himself lucky that ho was not sent to gaol without the option of a fine. A fine of £•""> was inflicted, with costs £6 17s; in default six weeks' imprisonment.