The Express.
London, England, 1867-09-23 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY DECISION OF BUCKING-
RAMSRIRE MAGISTRATES.

At the Buckingham Petty Sessions, on Saturday,
before Mr. It. Fitzgerald (chairman) and other 'wakes of
the peace, the Rev. Mr. Harley, rector of
Bucks, was summoned to answer a charge preferred by
the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, for that on Sunday, the 18th of August, he did
ill-treat, abuse, and torture • dog, by pouring spirits of
turpentine on its hind parte. From the evidence, and the
rev. defendant's own statement, it appeared that upon
leaving church after evening service on the day in ques-
tion, he saw, on the premises of the rectory, • small dog
which belonged to • man named Durham (who was • sort
of steward to Mr. Stratton, a resident magistrate of the
village of Turveston, and one of the presiding justices).
The defendant thereupon called his man servant and said,
" Let us catch this dog and put turpentine upon him, and
he will not come here again.' They caught the dog, and
the servant was order .1 fetch a bag, into which the
hind and fore quarters of the animal were placed. The
rector then ordered his servant to proceed to en adjoining
field while he went fur some turpentine. Shortly after
the rector returned with a stone jar such as would hold a
pint or mole of turpentine, when some of it was poured
upon the root of the imprisoned dog's tail. The dog wee
then relesaed, when it ran into a pit. It was driven from
this place of concealment, when it rushed into the village,
howling, yelping, turning round, and attempting to bite
its hind. parts as though in great pain. On arriving home
the poor brute ran round its owner's room with its tongue
hanging out of its mouth, and making so much noise in
crying that it was turned out, the owner fearing it
might be mad. On the following day the rector met the
police constable in the village while he was inquiring into
the scandalous outrage, to whom he admitted be was the
guilty person, and said he could get off with paying. On
the next day the constable and rector examined the dog
together, when they found the injured parts very much
inflamed. Mr. Broad, member of the council of the
Royal Veterinary College, deposed that it was a gross act
of cruelty to apply turpentine in the manner
described, and that the spirit would inevitably run
into the most sensitive parts of the animal, and canes
excruciating pain. From the tendency to run round and
round, and other symptoms, it was clear to him that the
hair of the animal bad conducted the spirit to the mem-
brane of the rectum, and that it had been burnt by the
fluid. In defence, Mr. Small, solicitor, contended that
there was no intention to act cruelly, hut simply to rid
the rectory of the nuisance of dog trespass. He called only
one witness, the man-servant, who assisted the defendant
in the operation, and his evidence materially strengthened
the case for the prosecution. Mr. Berrie, of the Midland
Circuit, who appeared for the society, contended that the
only object the defendant could have bad in using turpen-
tine was the infliction of torture, because when it was
suggested that a pail of water would do as well,
be said, " Oh, no, water has not the same
effect as turpentine." The application of en inflamme-
tory spirit proved clearly the intention of the actor.
The bench, at the conclusion of the learned gen-
tleman's summing up, deliberated for a short time,
when the chairman, Mr. H. Fitzgerald, said "We
have given this case our best attention, and the law in
relation to it, and we have come to the conclusion that
the law has not been transgressed by the act which defen-
dant undoubtedly and confessedly did perform. We there-
fore dismiss the complaint, and I have much pleasure in
informing Mr. Harley that he leaves this court without a
stain upon his reputation em • Christian minister, a gentle-
man, and a humane man." The rev. defendant then
applied for costs, which the bench allowed.