ILL-TREATING A HORSE

Waikato Times, Volume 84, Issue 13208, 25 June 1915, Page 5

ILL-TREATING A HORSE

CASE AT NGARUAWAHIA. At the Xgaru.iivahia Police Court yesterday. U i'n:v Mr K. Rawson, S.M.. Thomas Thorn; son was charged with cruelly ill-trca.ing a horse suffering from sore shoulder* by causing it to he worked, end Ivn 'st Watson was charged wi,': e;r ; "iiy ill-heating the animal in que .lion by working it. Both defendants plead 'd not guilty. Henry Alder, secretary to the So- /•;■:;,• i'oi' il;i« Prevention of Cruelty to Anhimk er Auckland, who prosecuted, said liie.t when he saw the horse at the Waipa Colliery on Line Ist it had two very bad shoulders. The animal was drawing ten trucks with an aggregate weight ol seven ions. On the near shoulder there was a sore 8i !y 2i, and one of similar size on the off shoulder. The defendant Watson, who did not deny working the horse, said that Thompson knew all about the animal's sores, and had given him a box of ointment to rub on them. In witness' opinion it was a scandalous thing to work the horse in the condition it was when he saw it. The collar on the animal had not been chambered, and although there was evidence of the ointment having been applied, this remedy was no good, as there was continually "» "ibbing on the sores. The defendant Thompson asked the witness if he was doing anything towards the suppression of a publication dealing with the ointment he had used and the advertisement concerning it, which the defendant alleged said tha the horse should be worked when it was in the condition complained of. Constable Cavanagh, who had accompanied the previous witness to the colliery when the horse was inspected, gave corroborative evidence. To the defendant Thompson: Ho saw the horse working. The grade was a' down one over which the load had to be hauled.

In answer to His Worship, the constable said that thp sores were raw and red, and with a chambered collar the pain would have been prevented. His Worship said that in all cases of the kind he would like to have the opinion of a veterinary surgeon. After adjourning the Court for the purpose of inspecting the horse, the defendant Watson said that he had told Thompson about the horse four days previous to June Ist. The horse had the sores about a month before, and had heen worked with pads up to within two days of the visit by Mr Alder. He used the ointment then and worked without pads. Ho had not much experience, he said, liul nr.Mcod that the animal did not fin-h at hi- work. Ho admitted that lie fie vas aware that the law did no; ah'-w liiin to work a horse affected with sore shoulders. The defendant Thompson said that he had only had the horse for six or seven weeks. The animal had become sore and had been spelled until it was thoroughly well, but the sores broke out again in a week. If the company had to spell every horse that had a bit of a sore shoulder they would not be able to keep any working, as about 90 per cent, of the work was done with horses. The main thing was to keep the animals in good condition, as he had learned from

long experience. To-Mr Alder: Watson had only had the horsp about a week. Ho did not think it necessary to get the collar chamberod. If the chafe was merely on the surface, as he held was the case, it was his opinion that the horse should be worked. His Worship said that it was his intention to convict both defendants. He must lay down the principle that where a horse was in the condition that the one in question was, when worked, it would l)e cruelty to do so. Because the animal did not flinch they were not entitled to conclude that it was not suffering pain. Maybe the defendant Thompson was under the impression that it was not cruel to work the horse, and that in doing so he was not inflicting pain on the animal. The driver appeared to be a bit dubious about it. He was acting under compulsion and the fear that he might lose his position if he did not work the horse. It would never do for him to let it go forth that a man could work a horse in that condition, because some advertisement said that such might be done. The defendant Thompson would be fined £5, and Watson £l. with lis costs in each case.