THE COURTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 4925, 15 January 1902, Page 3

T HE COURTS.

POLICE. Monday, 13th January, 1902.

(Before Messrs Herbert and Pilling, J.'dP.)

On the information of John Tyson, Fankleburn, a prohibition order was granted against John Dunlop to run throughout the Tuapeka licensing district and Waitahuua, to be in force for twelve months.

CRUELTY TO A HORSE.

Ah information was lodged by tbe Police against Francis Hagen chargiug him with ill-treating a horse by beating and kicking it at Waitahuna on Friday, 3rd January; Mr Finlayson (honorary solicitor for the Society for tbe Protection of Animals) for the prosecution ; Mr Haggitt for defeudaut.

Mr Finlayson said the information was laid under *• The Police Offences Act, 1884."

Mr Haggitt took exception to the informal ion on the ground that it disclosed two offences, and therefore it was bad under the Justices of the Peace Acf.- -

Mr Finlayson said the Bench had power to amend the information by striking out the word kicking. On this being done, he said, from instructions he bad received, the case was a very aggravated one, the horse having been cruelly beaten for over a quarter of an hour. It was struck all over the head and body with the butt end of a whip and apparently for no reason whatever. During the beating Mr Sutherland repeatedly abked defendant to desist from ill-treating the animal but be refused to do so and told him it was none of bis business. All the circumstances pointed to tho horse having been very cruelly used. He called

Catherine Pink, Waitahuna Gnlly, who said sho remembered Friday, 3rd January, when she was washing at the back of her house. There was a team taking gravel out of a pit about 50yds away. IShe could hardly identify the driver. Thore were three horses in the team.

Mr Haggitt to a question as to whether sLe had subsequently heard who the man was who Mused the horse, and the objection was admitted.

Witness continuing said she recognised defeudant in court as being in charge of the team. She saw him strike the horse repeatedly with the butt end of the whip because the horse did not pull. He struck it on the body, legs, and head. He then took it out of the team and held it with a rope and further ill-used it. She heard another man present ask him to knock off as he had already beaten it enough. The driver again took it in hand and again commenced beating it and kicked it on the belly. He^ was beating it altogether about a quarter of an hour. She did not see the horse do anything wrong. The strokes he gave 'he horse were very severe. Mr Sutherland came on the ground when the second man took the horse in hand to beat it. Heard Sutherland ask Hagen two or three times to desist but could not hear what answer was made. Identified Hagen in Court as the driver of the horse.

Cross-examined : T.be driver looked very like Hagon. He used an ordinary carter's whip. Could not swear positively which end of the whip he was using. Had no coDversation with anyone about the case. Mr Sutherland came to her while the beating was going on. She asked him if they were not beating the horse too severely and Mr Sutherland said he would go down and see if he could get them to stop it. She certainly thought the beating was too severe.

By Mr Finlayson : There were only two drivers. Could not mistake the one for the other.

By the Bench : It was the handle of the whip that was used. Did not know whether there was any wound inflicted. Alexander Sutherland, miner, Waitahuna, said 'he was coming home from his claim on the day in question and heard something being beaten. Soon after he saw a man beating a horse and, in going across, found it was Hagen who was ill-using the animal. He had him out on the gravel with nothing on him but the collar. He beat him all over from head to tail. Witness interfered and told him to stop. Defendant used strong language and refused to desist. Soon after he got the horse out and after the animal had done his level best he beat him along the main road. He asked him twice to desist, but defendaut would not listen to him. Witnesa considered the horse was cruelly beaten. A man named M'Stay had another team and he also gave the horse Hagen was beating a laah or two. He considered the horse deserved to be held back instead of being beaten, as he pulled more than the other two horses. He knew the animal well and he was a very free horse,

Cross-examined: Hagen wa* very excited on the occasion. It would not be correct to say that he only hit the horse three times. Did not know whether there were any marks on the horse. Had never any dispute with Hagen about the gravel pit. He might have given the horse a hundred blows.

By the Bench : He struck the horse behind the ear and on the body and legs.

Samuel Chant, laborer, Waitahuna, remembered the afternoon in question. He heard a noise in the gravel pit and went over and saw defendant and a number of others there When the team got out of the pit Hagen used the whip on one of the horses. He was asked to stop by Sutherland but refused. Witness had worked the horse in quesionfor about six months and found him always right enough. When he saw the horse being hammered he was pulling more than his share.

Cross-examined : If he had been present by himself he should have said nothing about it. He was askod to come forward as a witness.

By the Bench: He considered the horse was cruelly beaten.

Constable West, stationed at Waitahuna, stated a complaint was made to him by Mr Sutherland about Hagen beating the horse. He examined the horse as it passed the police station and found it sweating as if it had been pulled out of the river while the other two horses were perfectly dry. The horse was also very exciter) and he had a difficulty in getting close to him. The butt end of the whip, he noticed, was split up into four or five pieces. He noticed no cat or blood on the horse.

By Mr Haggitt: Ordinarily Hagen was a very good man with horses, but when he lost his temper, as he apparently did on tbat occasion, he was hardly responsible for his actions.

Francis Hagen, defendant, being sworn, said on the 3rd January he was using the horse said to be ilUtreated. He had had a spell for some time and found him hard to control. He would do nothing but jump about and plunge. He then gave him a few smacks with the whip. He was an excitable horse and usually sweated a good deal. He had to use the whip on him as he could not get him into the dray. He only hit him three times altogether. Had been driving about 43 years off and on in New Zealand. Did not consider he bad ill-treated the horse.

Cross-examined : The whipping would not prevent the horse from getting into the dray. Would swear he struck the horse three times. Sutherland asked him only once to stop beating the horse.

By the Bench : He believed the several witnesses, had a " set " on him because he refused to stop taking gravel out of the pit. and therefore they did not swear the truth against him*

Hugh M'Stay, laborer, Waitahuna, was carting gravel with Hagen on the 3rd January. Hagon's horse got oat Of the harness and JEJagen hit him about

four times with the thong of the whip. He did not hit him very severely. Did nob consider the horse was cruelly beaten. Cross-examined : After he got out of the pit with his team he went back about a chain to the pit again and saw the horse rearing. Struck be horse himself two or three limes. He was not trying to protect himself nor Hagen from being convicted by tho evidence he was giving. After the horse was taken out of the team ho was brought about 30ft away to fix the harness on him. They did not lash him all the way. Did nob hear Sutherland remonstrate with Hagen. By the Bench : He could not say what brought Sutherland on the scene and did nob hear him say anything to Hagen. He heard him ask why the horse was out of ihe team. He could hear pretty well. He believed the horse was very kindly and gently treated. \ There had been no understanding be- ; bween hfmself aud Hugen and no com- \ poring of notes. i Mr JBaggitt said that was all the ' ! evidence he bad bo offer. The Bench said the only conclusion bhab cnild be come to from a considerabion of the evidence offered was that Hagen was guilby of ill-treating the horse. Ho would be fiued 10s and costs. They also wished to commend Mr Sutherland for enabling tho information to be laid. There was a very general objection among people not to make complaints of this kino 1 , and th^re was therefore all v the more reason to com* mend Mr Sutherland for bis action in the present instance. Hagen wonld be fined 10*; witnesses expenses, 19 J ; costs of Oouri^ 13d ; solicitor's fee, 10s 6d, BOYS BEFORE THE COURT. Three boys named Geo. Fair, Peter Reidy, and J). M'Corkindale were charged on an inforraabion laid- by the Police with throwing stones at the house of P. Sloan and breaking one of the windows. Sergeant Bowman said the complainant had suffered a good deal of annoyance through conduct of this kind, but on Friday night last, when the present attack took place, it was worse than usual. Mr Sloan did not want to have the boys severely dealt with and would be satisfied if they paid for the window broken. The Bench said ib was a very bad charge, as serious injury might have resulted. The boys, who promised bo conduct thomselves bebber in future, were convicbed and discharged and ordered bo pay the cost of the window (3s).