The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1878-05-28 00:00:00

CRUELTY TO ANIMAL

IWhat is or what Is not cruelty to an animal? /loch wed
the &Moult qmoten. which Si. Ale:ender Cockburn and
Mr. Justice Melte w.-C, on b's ednesday. called upon to
oecide, not witu ref • relied to the getters' Issue, it is true,
! but as regard. the par,i,•:ar facts Of a special caste stated
too Us. ii Loothoo‘no onooleration by Mr. Bilge, the
Ilearned magistrate. toe W•hdaworth Police Court The
. circumstances set out Ity the motagien,
oe end tareet
I bets ek:n the parties. were as follows. Mt. r2eWeli. resides
I in the Gerden-rosol, Clophem, and be has • mighbour. •
certain Mr. O'Brien. who is fond of dog., and, amongst
othoro owned a fovourite retriever. Mr. crßnasis dogs
I were its the habit of trespasaing on Mr. Powells garden.
I where, no doubt, tbeplid comidereble damage. If • tuan
is loud of flower., un 1 has laid, out • fancy feel full of
• tperteire geraniurno, celceolarma, and carnations of the
different page vents,", it is eanot ina to have two dugs
suddenly rush into the acted domain, pursue one another
round aud round tee Led. romp over it, and race outman.
This way be at mace admitted, and it seems that some
difficulty of the sort must have occorred in the mos In
goe.timt. On the evening of tine tied of February teat
Mr. Powell new his netehheur's dog in hi. sarden, and he
then and there abut it with a mewl. Hereon arises a
mime legal bale. Mr. 0 Brien issuiug Mr. Powell for the
vaiue of the dog, awl it is unlikely that he mar be success-
ful in his ection. When a beast which io not/ere mains,
but rather domino eye deassadien, strays tei a asic. lend,
his remedy is to impound i demagog. faaraar. It he kill
it. he does so at his own risk. To suggest a possible may,
the proprietor of a china shop has no riglit, except he be
In actual danger of life, to shoot a hall which makes its
way into his mtablisinueut. He must, under a statute
pasted in the seveuteenth and eighteenth years of the
tact of her present Matadi. impound the said hull in a
a pound overt in tho couple, and not above tines miles
distant from the place where the damage ems done, and
must, while the said bull remains so impounded provide
sod supply it with a sufficient qudaity of wholesome
food and water, ad then. ou the expiration of seven daye
utast openly. at • ccrtain public market. Mier haying
ates three dot • public printed notice. set the said bull
lized;.u,rb.lic,:rtei,ti..„..lotroto.llitnerte het ; anel
case msu-o:leoprdroivol to
We call attention to this point ol law, became it is a
common error that • MAU ham a rieht to shout his neigh-
bour's cats if they get into his oe it garden.
The Lone of demote., however, is not the matter at
stake. Mr. Powell was brought before the magistrate at
Wands. orth, not for depriviug Mr. O'Brien of his dog,
hot, under the secon I section en , of tim Act for the Pierce
loon of Cruelty to A-ulnae's, for ill trestle& abusing, and
torturing at. Toe tots, ace ti by th• ittagoorato, are
them The dog was shut through We eye, and fell in the
garden on the ground. Mr. Powell thereat son went round
to his neighbour Mr. Offirise, and told him what had
happened The two returned together to the spot, and
both thought the dog was dead. Mr. Powell sent for •
Policeman, and on his arrival to the dog by the collar
and dragged it into the road. It then gave evident signs
of life, and there is no doubt that Mr. Powell knew very
well it was alive and in pain. He lett the poor creature,
however in the road, saying to Mr. O'Brien, Ido not
think it I. dead, if you like to see to it," The latter
geutleman, whose temper was up, replete "You shot it.
You must see to it yourself." An hour lam another
constable found the dog still wive is the :Gad, and called
Mr. Powell's attention to the fact. He reused, however,
to go out, and neither killed the unhappy besot nor caused
it to be killed, and it remained lying on the road until
three o'clock in the morning, when • policeman merci-
fully dap.itched it with his truncheon. These being the
circumstances, Mr. Bridge held that by omitting to kill
it. dug altar he had wounded it, the defendant, was
guilty under the Act of illoreating and torturing it, and
lie accordingly convicted hint in the statutable penalty of
five pounds. On Mr. Powell's behalf it was urged that,
there being no question at present whether the original
shooting of the dog was lawful or not, the not killing it
afterwards, or not seeing that it was killed. was • mere
act of omission Anil between ondotion and positive cruelty
• clear distinetionbe drawn. To Ai n a cat olive, for nutmeg
is positive croak/. To newsy for the summer season and
leave the cat in the area without means of subsistence is
omission merely, uot p toile* cruelty. Such was the point
raised in favour of Mr. Persil. and the Goitre although
reluctantly, has held It goad, sad bas reversed the decision
of the learned magi•trate. There was. Mut Lord Chief
Justice pointed out, "so intentional act a torture." Mr.
Powell "was a great brute"—we use Sir Alexander Conk'
burn's own words—not to put the pour creature out of its
torture; but this did not bring him within the statute.
"Any men of eoutaiou Lunanity," hie Lordship went on
to remark, "would have felt it necessary to put an end
to the agent of the unfortunate animal, which lie
himself had shot, and any man whom heart was not made
of the hardest materlala would have •lose so. The
defendant, however, dit not chime to do to ' • and, though
we Cannot speak in terns of too great retrobmion of the
inhuman cruelty of which Le was thus passively guilty in
not taking eteps to put an end to the suffering of the
poor animal, the question is whether the ease comes
within the tertus of the Act, and I do nit think that it
does. The act of shooting the dog was lawlul, and the
defendant did nothing ite, lint was merely passive.
That is not what the At contemplates it refers to
sotuething wilfully done by the party for the purpose of
inflicting Pain. The language of the Act must not he
twisted and tortured to enable us to ruttish the in-
hentaniiy 0` which this man may htne bee guilty. If
the Legislature chinless to enact that a person guilty of
ash inhuman con het shall he liable to the penalties
•.( the law, it way do no: but the case doe. not Collie
within the terms of the present statute." We can add
nothing to these words of gm learned Juane. The censure
le one of the gravest kind, delivered In judicially measured
terms, and, although severe, amuot be consolered dis-
proPortionate to the offence.
Unfortunately, in spite of the many active human'
Itarian movements which we are gin.t t.. notice go
prevelent and as Ittt.y atimmat us—in spite of all that Is
done by the Royal Society for the Preventiou of Cruelty
to Animals and by independent workers in the same good
eause—there le an amount, of brutality perpetrated upon
helpless creatures which would seem incredible had we
11. t alMott daily evidence of it. In our issue of yesterday
will bo found the case of a ruffian, ucar Barnsley, who,
apparently out of mere wanton wickedness, seized • sheep
and kicked it in a most brutal manner: than placed &rope
round its nerk end hung it suns tree; let it down before
it was completely str.ingled alga hung it up again. He
wax brought before the Barnsley magistrate, and fined
three pounds, including stets—a sentence, in our opinion,
far too lenient considering the shocking atrocity of the
art. Another charge was heard on the seam day, at Bow.
street, before Mr. Vaughan. A gentleman named Cex
'a' eiminionet tor working a horse, the fetlocks of which
..c knuckled over and appareutly dislocated. while its
back, aboulders, and withers exhibited large wounds.
Mr. Cox • defence was that the horse was going to be
killed the next day, and that, comemiently. an extra job
.ould not hurt it, lie was fined five pounds end ten
shillings and sixpence costs. This is the heaviest penalty
allowed by the Act, and we venture to submit that it is
totally inadequate. Where a man wilfully and knowiugly
tortures and ill-treata • dumb creature he ought to be
aenteuced to • term of irliprlioninent and hard labour;
nut necessarily a long term, inasmuch as the •ting re the
punishment lies in Os degradation, but one sufficient to
brand his offence with the disreputable character which
properly attaches to it. We need not go NO fares Bentham
dot when he held that, in any properly constructed
scheme of morality, the bappinem and wellbeing of
! animals should be recogniseti. and their promotiou erected
into • duty. We may put the matter on si meter grounds.
Cruelty, like other vow, grows with practice until it
Meow. inveterate He who ill-treiste • dog or a horse
would, were it not that be dreads the strong arm of the
law, ill-use women and children. To • great extent, no
doubt, society has for wine year, past become more
hinuanieed. A man must he shantelese, indeed, to avow
publicly that he is partial to cock-fighting or badger-
halting or ratting, and it has ceased to be one •if the
I recommendations of • dog that he should Ite able to kill
• cat. At the same time we hove much to learn, and it is
I to he hoped that in some future session of Act for the
, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals may he made more
I stringent, and impose graver penalties for other act, than
, those teehauically known as " positive " brutality.—
Telegraph.