CRUELTY TO HORSE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 278, 24 November 1936, Page 5

CRUELTY TO HORSE

DEFENDANT FINED £5 ANIMAL DIED IN BALGOWNIE SWAMP LENGTHY EVIDENCE GIVEN At the Wanganui Magistrate's Court yesterday, Arthur Henry James Gudsell was fined £5 Is for cruelty to a horse. The odd shilling was added to permit the lodging of an appeal. Evidence was led by the police to show that defendant had put. the animal into a paddock adjoining Puriri Street, when it was suffering from a wound in a fetlock. The police alleged that he had then failed to give the animal proper attention. The defence was that the suffering the anii/I had been caused was the result of a sudden visitation of blood poisoning and that the defendant could not be held liable. Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., presided. Senior Sergeant L. R. Capp appeared for the police and defendant was represented by Mr. V. B. Willis. Constable Henry Sargeant said that he interviewed the defendant, who declined to make a statement in writing. He informed witness verbally that the horse was his property and that he had put it in the fair for sale and while it was in the yards it received a cut on a hind leg. He then took the horse and turned it out in a paddock in Puriri Street and visited it occasionally and it seemed to be doing all right. He denied being told by anybody that the horse required attention. He said that at about this time he broke an arm and was unable to give the task the attention he otherwise would. He then went away on a droving job and was informed by Inspector Minnell that the horse had died. At the inspector's request he buried the animal and noticed then that the cut

‘ appeared to have opened through the I sand getting into it. To Mr. Willis: The paddock was in Balgownie swamp. It was a wilderness full of tussock. He did not re- , member defendant saying he had asked his next door neighbour to look after the horse. Mr. Willis: I want to suggest tc you that the first he knew of any aggravation of the wound was when you went to interview him?—He said that when he went to bury the horse he noticed that the wound had opened up. An Injured Horse Seen. Richard Brown, labourer, Castlecliff, said that he had occasion to go through defendant’s paddock every ' day. Witness found the horse stretched out one night and when it I got up he noticed that one of its hind ( legs was in a very bad state. It could not put the leg to the ground. The leg was in a terrible state. The horse galloped away out of his sight and he never saw it again for some weeks. In three weeks the leg was apparently healed. The next occasion witness saw the animal it was dead. Witness said that perhaps he should not say the animal galloped away. It hopped away on three legs. Apparently some of the proud flesh had fallen into the sand where the horse had been lying when he first saw it. There was not good feed for the horse and it was in poor condition. The wound extended between the knee and the fetlock. To Willis: He had gone through the paddock daily for three months, and saw the horse three times. Witness had complained several times to one of defendant’s mates, Mr. Signal. Witness made no official complaint when he saw the horse in a shocking condition. He thought that had been done by others. Mr. Willis: I want to suggest to you that this horse was in pretty good 1 condition? —No, he wasn’t. Witness considered there was no I grass in the paddock in August. He had been all over it at times. Mr. Willis: On the second occasion you saw the horse it was running with others? —Yes. And it was healed up?—Apparently healed up, I said. It was still lame. Re-examined witness said he had seen the defendant in the paddock on

several occasions after he (witness) had first seen the horse. Ernest James, labourer, Ruapehu Street, Castlecliff, described seeing the horse. His greyhounds were being exercised and they disappeared. Witness found them near the horse, which was lying beside a toi bush. He noticed a very bad wound on one of the horse’s hind legs, from the fetlock to the hock. To Mr. Willis: On the only occasions you saw this horse alive it was all right?—lt was limping about. 1 didn’t get off by bike to go and see as it was none of my business. It was galloping round with the others. It looked a fresh enough horse. It is a good warm paddock, but very rough and had plenty of food and water. It was not a good paddock to put an injured horse in. Roy Spriggens, drover, 3 Purnell Street, Wanganui, also described the horse which he said was lame. He could not get very close to it. He galloped away with the other two. He had seen Gudsell about a week later and told him that there was a lame horse there. That was the only time witness had seen the lame horse. To Mr. Willis: It was a good pad-i dock for stock in the spring and winter, but too dry .in the summer. John Minnell, City Council Inspector, said that on September 16, 1935, he received a complaint from Puriri Street in respect to a dead horse. He examined the carcase and found a leg injury. A hind leg was open from ' about the fetlock to the hock. It was septic. It would appear that the . horse had been going round in circles. llt was not a good paddock and it I appeared that the horse had died of blood poisoning. When questioned, defendant had said that he knew the horse's leg was injured. Asked why he had not attended to it, defendant said that it was an unbroken horse which could not be handled. Defendant had made no comment to a suggestion that he should have shot the horse.

To Mr. Willis: He would think that the horse had died of blood poisoning. The Defence, Mr. Willis said that in view of the particular nature of the charge and the submissions he would make he proposed to address His Worship at some length. He drew attention to the words "wantonly caused the horse unnecessary suffering,” which were mentioned in the charge. He said that it was contended that there was no evidence at all to support such a charge, but if His Worship held there was he would submit that a man charged with cruelty to animals could excuse himself by proving to the satisfaction of the court that he did not have a guilty mind and that the cruelty was unintentional. Counsel quoted authorities in support of his submissions. Mr. Willis made the following submissions: (1) That there was no evidence of mens rea. (2) That the suffering undergone by the horse which directly arose from a comparatively slight injury it suffered at the horse fair on August 8, was unavoidable in all the circumstances. (3> That any act or omission on the part of the defendant which may have resulted in the suffering was not wanton and was unintentional on his part. (4) That it was not sufficient for the police to claim that the defendant ought to have known of the likelihood of suffering. (5) That the , defendant took all steps in the circumstances to ensure that the animal, which was of value to him, should be watched by a neighbour. (6) That, ’ at the most, there had been an error of judgment only so far as Gudsell was concerned and on that he could not be found liable on the evidence led by the police. Counsel reviewed the evidence and contended that the horse had died of blood poisoning, a condition which developed rapidly. It was reasonable to conclude, he said, that the blood poisoning had been caused by contact with marram grass, and rusty iron. There was a possibility that aggravation was caused by dogs which visited the locality. If the horse had suf- , fered because of blood poisoning the ' defendant could not be convicted of ■ wantonly causing that suffering. • Counsel contended that it was an ■ unbroken horse, that it was practical- ; ]y impossible to catch it in the pad- ’ dock, that the defendant turned it : loose on August 8 but did not • neglect it. .. On fact and in law, counsel con- ; tended, the information should be dismissed. Arthur Henry J. Gudsell, the de- : fendant, a drover, said that he pur- i chased the horse in June and valued it at £l2. That reserve was on him in the fair. It was unbroken. It was injured on some old railway lines in f the yards—a cut on the rear hind fet- (

lock, about two inches long. Witness decided not to sell it. It was fit enough to drive back to Puriri Street. The paddock was warm and sheltered, had plenty of food and water and was a good paddock to put an injured horse in. He thought the horse had every chance of. recovery. He visited it frequently to see how It was getting on and it appeared to be getting better. It was lame, but at times appeared to have got better. Witness had a broken arm and during that period he asked a neighbour, a Mr. Hogg, to keep an eye on all his horses and stock in the paddock, especially the injured horse. Witness did not know of the condition of the horse as described by Mr. Brown. Witness would have known it had the horse been in that condition. No one complained to him of it being in that condition. Witness knew nothing of the blood poisoning condition prior to the horse’s death. The animal was never in a condition that necessitated it being shot. It was well known that dogs ravaged dead animal bodies in these paddocks. To Senior Sergeant Capp: His only reason for not selling the horse was because of the two-inches of a wound in the fetlock. He had put the horse back in the paddock to treat itseif and get right. Witness denied the evidence of Brown. In witness’ opinion nothing could have been done for the horse during the time he had seen it in the paddock. The sore did heal.

s Under cross-examination witness e said that he had seen the horse a >. week prior to its death and it was t then fairly well healed. If it had been I in the condition it was in at the time I, of its death he would have considered e it his duty to shoot it. A horse in y that condition was no use to anyone, t Re-examined witness said that he e was away for a week after seeing the . horse for the last time until Mr. Min- . nell told him it was dead. g To His Worship: Witness’ arm was i well enough to take the horse to the t fair and drive it back again afterwards. William Hogg, who occupied the paddock next to the defendant’s, said that Gudsell’s paddock was a good one J for a convalescent horse. Gudsell, 1 after the fair, had mentioned to wit- ? ness that the horse had met with a t slight accident to its dot. Witness had > said that accidents of that sort were ; likely to happen to young horses and i m that paddock, where the ground 1 was soft, he was likely to get better. ; Witness had not been able to get i close enough to see what the wound > was like. He continued to keep an i eye on the horse which, he said, was ; appearing to get better. There was > iron, barbed wire, and all sorts of . rusty wire lying about. It was quite ! possible for the horse to suffer injury . by getting caught with iron or wire. [ To the senior-sergeant: It was quite , a good paddock. There was only one , portion affected with iron and wire. , He knew of horses dying from blood , poisoning. That was a bad time of the year. [ The senior-sergeant: All the more . reason why wounds should have special attention?—lt might and it j might not. It would depend on the way the injury was caused. Fine Imposed

I am satisfied that there has been some neglect by the defendant in putting an injured animal into that paddock and. I think, leaving it there without proper supervision,” said His Worship. "Independant witnesses members of the public, have come for-' (ward to support the condition of the horse. Then there is the inspector’s fv'dence and. I think, it is quite clear that the animal was not seen regularly by the owner as he would have the court believe. The defence is a legal one and depends upon the absence of mens rea." His Worshin pointed out that mens rea could arise from neglect of an owner to do his duty and it was tn that second phase that he thought mens rea had been established in this case. In such a class of case, however, there was the question of degree and he believed that in this instance there was something to be said in extenuation. The owner when he put the animal in the paddock, did not realise the seriousness of the wound. In cases where deliberate or wanton cruelty was proved His Worship considered the court should deal with them very severely. Tn this case he would take into acount the nuestion of degree and impose a fine or 15 (costs, 19s; witnesses’ expenses 265). On the application of Mr. Willis His Worship increased the fine to £b Is so as to permit the lodging of an appeal. Advertising can reduce selling co-ts and lessen the time in which a product moves from factory to consumer.