The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-07-17 00:00:00

CROPPING A BOARHOUND'S EARS.

At Westminster Police-court, London, on Tuesday,
William Clements, described as a dog fancier, of 64,
Marsham-street, Westminster, appeared to a
summons at the instance of ties Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to answer a charge
of cruelty to a boarhound. Mr. T. Duerdin Dutton,
who prosecuted for the society, stated that the de-
fendant was charged, under a section of the Act of
Parliament, with causing or procuring the torture of
an animal, there being no direct evidence that he per-
petrated the cruelty. It seemed that it was the
fashion to clip the ears of a boarhound—a dog
almost as large as a St. Bernard—and this
practice enhanced the value of the animals at
shows and in the market. Defendant, who kept or
resided at a beerhouse in Westminster, offered
a boarhound for sale, and as the poor animal was
shockingly mutilated and in terrible pain, the society
had instituted this prosecution, and asked for a
penalty which would prevent repetitions of the
offence. William Jones, an inspector, employed by
the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
said that on Saturday, the 3rd kst., he went to the
defendant's place with a young man named Victor
Harding. He remarked to the defendant that he had
heard he had a boarhound for sale. Defendant asked
them to follow him. They accompanied him to a
loft over a stable at the back of the beerhouse. On
defendant proceeding to pull a chain witness heard a
piteous howling. Defendant said, "I had the bitch
cropped on Wednesday last to make her fashionable.
You will have to be very careful, as she is very spite-
ful." The dog was pulled from underneath some
lumber, and witness saw that its ears had been cut off
close to the head. There were small pieces left, from
which blood and matter was issuing, the operation
evidently having been very recent. The animal—a
large blue boarhound, was evidently in great pain,
and repeatedly howled. When asked about the ears,
defendant said "I did not cut them; Joe Bull cut
them." He cuts a great number. Witness subsequently
remarked that the operation must have been difficult,
and defendant replied" I held her and had a warm
job." Keeping up the idea that he was a likely pur-,
chaser he left with his friend, but at a further inter-
view on the sth inst. he told him that he was an officer
of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, and most likely a prosecution would follow.
Defend3nt then said he hoped they would not be hard
with him; all boarhounds were served the same
way, and fanciers could not sell them otherwise.
Victor Harding, Castle-road, Bedford, who accom-
panied the inspector, corroborated his evidence.
Defendant denied the conversation which the wit-
nesses alleged, and asserted that he told them that
the dog had severe canker in the ears, rendering the
operation necessary and humane. Mr. Catterall,'
veterinary surgeon, called for the prosecution, deposed
that he examined the dog. Both ears were cropped
quite close, and it would be eight or 10 days before the
healing process would set in. During all that time
the animal would be suffering. In so large an
animal it would be a difficult and terribly loiaigul
matter to cut through the thick cartilage. He con-
sidered it cruelty to cut any animal's ears. The de-
fendant said that all the boarhounds were cropped.
rhere were about 40 at the Aquarium Show, and,
without, exception, their ears were cut. This animal
A his was only a puppy, and it suffered from canker,'
and the operation was necessary. He hoped an ad-
journment would be allowed, so that he could call
veterinary evidence to prove that there had been no,
3ruelty. Mr. D'Eyncourt said that he should give the
defendant the fullest opportunity of answering the.
3ase. At the same time, he should not accept the
evidence of a man out of a farrier's shop. To alter,
uis present vievi of the case veterinary experts of good
standing would have to be called. The defendant.was
required to find a surety in £lO to appear on the next
'cession, and the case was adjourned.