The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-05-29 00:00:00

REMARKABLE BEQUEST.

The following letter appeared in The Times last
Friday, and it is with much pleasure we re-publish it :
I think the public in general, And the army in particular,
wil be interested ill the hollowing fact:—
At the meeting of the Weekly hoard of the General Hospital
to-day, Mr. Martin Preston attended as executor of the late
Mr. Frederick Attenborongh, with a copy of his will, by
which he leaves to the Hospital the sum of £4,200 Consols.
Mr. Preston stated that Mr. Attenborough had been an in-
patient of the hospital some fifty-three years since, and con-
sidered that to the skill and kindness there shown him
he owed his life ; and that, to show his gratitude, lie
wished to leave to the hospital all the savings of his many
years.
Sir. Attenhorough, after leaving the hospital, enlisted In
the 3rd Dragoon Guards, and served in that regiment as a
iirivate for 33 years and six months. Oct his discharge he was
presented with a service of plate by the officers of the rest.
ment "an a mark of their approbation of his conduct and
character.' Since his discharge he has been living a retired
life in Nottingham with a pension of in. 44d. a-day. The
whole of his munificent legacy to the hospital has been accu-
mulated by careful saving during a period of 53 years.
1 have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
FRANCIS MORS&
, St. Mary's Vicarage, Nottingham, May 19.

The following, under the head of "A Bright Ex-
ample," appearA in The Times of Monday :
Permit me to supplement by a few lines the letter o
the Vicar id St. Mary's, Nottingham. Attenborough not only
served in the 3rd Dragoon Guards upwards of 33 years as •
private di agouti, but as mess butler, during which long
period 1 call safely say, with unlimited wine and temptation
thrown in his way, he never once was net, inebriated. He
had the sole charge of the plate and wine, and I can say,
without fear of contradiction that not one salt-spoon was
missing, nor was OHO itk m in his accounts able to be chal-
lenged by the most sellablelin men committee. He bad
several good.conduct badges and a medal and gratuity, and
lived to end his days in comfort on hia pension, and leave
behind him a name which will long be remembeled with res-
pect by every one in his "mild corps," and ought to be an
example for young soldiers of the present day to go and do
likewise:

With every respect, I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
ONE WHu SERVED Who

Army and Nary Club, May 2.

SINGULAR CHARGE OF CRUELTY.

At the Tlainmersmith Police-court. on Tuesday, James
Bye, a labourer, living at North-end, Fulham, was summoned
by Mr. Andrewes, the chief Constahle of the Royal society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for cruelly torturdig
a little brown terrier dog by cutting its cars. George Hud-
son surrendered to his bail to answer a charge of causing
the cruelty to the dog.
Mr. Abrams supported the summons; and Mr.
Martin, who conducted the delence, pleaded not guilty
to the cruelty.
It appeared that on Sunday, the 9th met, Police-
constable 310 T saw Hudson in Fulham with some.
thing under his coat, and on asking him what he had
got he said, "Nothing." He opened the misoner's
coat, and found the dog underneath, covered with
blood and bleeding from the ears, which had been cut.
He at first said he had given a shilling to have the
dog's ears cut, but afterwards stated that he had cut
the.m. The dog appeared to be suffering great pain,
and could scarcely stand. Sell, one of the officers of
the Royal Society, afterwards saw both men, when
they admitted that Bye cut the ears while Hudson
held the dog.
Mr. Abrams said a custom had long prevailed of
cropping dogs' ears, and the Royal Society could only
hope to put a stop to it by taking up those cases which
were brought under their notice. They did not wish
for a heavy penalty, but one which would put a stop
to the practice.
Mr. l:eorge Fleming, of Chatham, veterinary sur-
geon to the Royal Engineers, was called, and he stated
that the operation would be an act of cruelty to the
dog, and came it extreme pain. He explained that
dogs of that breed had drooping ears, which, if cut in
the way which was presented by the little terrier in
court, left the inner parts unprotected, and in many
cases produced deafness. He attributed the cutting of
dogs' ears to a depraved taste, and denied that it was
the usual custom.
In cross-examination the witness said it had not been
the usual practice to crop the ears of the Dandle Din-
inont and Scotch terrier breeds. He had seen Sir
Edwin Landseer's pictures of her Majesty's dogs,
which may have been painted with cropped ears, but
that was not relevant to the subject.
Sir Edwin Landseer, who had been sitting at the
solicitors' table, here rose and said the Queen protested
against cropping, and never had a dog's ear cropped in
her life.
Mr. Fleming said he had seen dogs painted with their
ears cut.
Mr Martin produced a copy of Sir Edwin Landseer's
celebrated picture of "Dignity and Impudence," and
pointed to the cunning face of the little terrier in the
corner, whieh had its ears cropped.
Sir Edwin again rose, and Paid it was the only one
he painted, and it was done to show the custom. In
the same way it might be said that a lady did not feel
any pain on having her ears pierced. He mentioned
that several years ago he withdrew from the umpire-
ehip of a dog show because he objected to the admis-
sion of mutilated dogs, and that led to some remarks
being published in the Field. He answered them in
letters to The Times, in which his opinion could be
found.
Professor Pritchard, of the Veterinary College, was
called by Mr. Abrams, and he said it was a painful and
nhiiman operation.
Mr. Martin said his defence was that the torture of
the dog was not for the purposes of cruelty according
to the Act of Parliament, but to carry on a practice of
ages long before, to beautify the appearance of the
animal. Whether the ears were skilfully or unskilfully
cut was not the question. It was whether they were
cut for the sake of torturing the dog, or to make the
animal more beautiful and valuable.
The magistrate said he had no doubt the cutting of
the ears in that way caused the dog great pain. Ac-
cording to the evidence the practice destroyed the
value of the dog, and would give it annoyance so long
as it lived. He would only say that he looked upon
the practice as a barbarous relic of a barbarous age.
He had no doubt it was such as would be considered an
act of cruelty, although tilers was a difference in the
case of cattle, as certain operations had to be performed
for the benefit of mankind. If he followed his own
feelings he should send the defendants to prison, but at
the same time he could not resist the argument that
they were foolish persons. He however fined each 55.,
said Bye 2e. costs, in the hope that it would be a warn-
ing, and that they would not do it again.
17he money was immediately paid.