The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-01 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A DIFFERENCIS OF OPINION BETWEEN VETERINARY
SURGEONS-THE CASE OF ♦ POOR C♦B HORSE.-Mr.
John Harris, cab proprietor, of Burwood-mews, Edgware-
road, and Wm. Warwick, a driver in his employ, were
charged by Mr. Wm.lLove, of the Royal Society for the pre-
vention of Cruelty to Animals, the former with having
caused a horse to be tortured, and the latter with having
tortured it by working it whilst in an unfit state for labour.
A solicitor appeared for the defence, and both cases were
heard together.

Mr. Love stated that on the 24th ult., he was in Regent-
street, and saw Warwick driving a horse in a four-wheeled
cab. The horse was lame in both forelegs and its general
condition was bad, and the driver who was tugging the reins
had a difficulty in getting it along. In conjunction with Mr•
Cherry, the veterinary surgeon, who was with him, he stopped
Warwick, and, on examining the horse, he found an exten-
sive raw wound on the inside of the fetlock joint of the near
foreleg, evidently of some long standing, and covered with
a piece of cloth; also three wounds just above the fetlock
joint. Its fore and hind quarters were much shrunken, it
trembled, and seemed exhausted, and had apparently been
hunted, overdriven, and overworked, and in his opinion it
was totally unfit for cab work. The defendant Warwick
admitted that he had a difficulty in earning his money with
the horse, The defendant Harris admitted he sent the
horse out to work, and that he placed the cloth where it
was in the habit of cutting itself, and that he considered it
fit for work.

In cross-examination, Mr. Love said his complaint was
not simply of the wounds, but of the horse's general unfit-
ness for work. He had seen the horse that day, and it
was manifestly improved since he made the complaint—
eight days ago—still he considered the horse unfit for cab-
work. In his opinion, the horse was not worth more than
food for " knackers" at the present time.
Mr. Arthur Cherry, the Government veterinary surgeon
and inspector, proved examining the horse on Thursday
week last, with ➢lr. Love, and ho found it poor, weak, and
exhausted, and lame in both forelegs, the fetlock joints
being swollen and deformed. There was a wound of con-
siderable size on the fetlock joint, covered with a piece of
cloth, quite raw, and of long standing. The horse was
altogether unfit for work, and he directed the driver to take
it home. He had seen the horse that day, and, although it
was in a beam condition than it was then, it did not alter
his opinion as to its general unfitness to work in a public
carriage.

In cross-examination Mr. Cherry said he attributed the
injuries to the deformity of the fetlock joints.
The defendant's solicitor said the complaint proceeded
from the over zealousness in carrying out their duties of the
gentlemen who appeared as witnesses. He would call
another veterinary surgeon, who would put a different face
on the matter, and show that the horse was net only fit for
the work, but that it was in reality a valuable animal.

Mr. Dollar, veterinary surgeon to several public com-
panies, and residing in Bond-street, said he examined the
horse on Monday last, and again that day, and he consi-
dered its value about £lO. It was not an old horse, its con-
stitution was sound, it was in good condition, and he consi-
dered it perfect►y capable of working in a cab. The wounds
on the fetlock joints were but trifling, and it might have
cut itself on the day the complaint was made, but it might
go for weeks without doing so again, He staked his pro-
fessional reputation in saying that the horse was quite fit
to work in a public carriage.

Mr. Knox said that veterinary surgeons sometimes
differed in opinion, and when a person like Mr. Dollar oame
forward and took oath, and staked his professional repu-
tation that the horse was fit for the work it was put to, he
(the magistrate) was bound to accept his evidence, and
therefore the charge against the owner must fall to the

ground. But with regard to the driver, unless he dis•
believed the positive testimony of Mr. Cherry, the veteri-
nary surgeon, and that of Mr. Love, of the society, he must
convict him. It had been sworn to that the horse on the
day in question was lame, weak, exhausted, overdriven,
and overworked, and in a miserable state. That no doubt
was the work of the driver, and placing, as he (the magis-
trate) did the fullest reliance upon the evidence of the wit-
nesses, he should convict the driver in a penalty of 205., or
14 days in the House of Correction.
The fine was paid by the owner of the horse.