The Sun.
London, England, 1852-09-14 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER.

It having been communicated to the whole of the
parties concerned that Mr. Arnold intended to give
his decision yesterday in the cue of ballooning
with ponies, which was detailed at length in our im-
pression of Wednesday last, they attended to hear his
judgment.
Mr. ARNOLD said—Five summonses came on for
hearing on Tuesday last against M. and Madame
Poitevin, for having cruelly ill-treated, abused, and
tortured two horses, and against Mr Simpson for
causing them to be so ill-treated, abused, and tor-
tured. It was agreed that one case only should be
heard—that against Mr. Simpson, for an offence al-
leged to have been committed on the 23d, and that
the result of one case should determine the whole.
It is not necessary to recapitulate the whole of the
evidence; but it appeared that on that occasion a
balloon ascent took place from Cremorne-gardens,
when a pony having been attached by slings to the
car of the balloon it ascended with M. Poitevin on
its back, dancing during its ascent. Mr. Simp-
son was present at, and superintended the
ascent. It was alleged that the manner in
which the animal was attached on slings to the bal-
loon was such as necessarily to inflict great pain, and
it was proved by a witness who was present when the
balloon descended at Wimbledon that the horse was
very hot, and that perspiration was dripping down its
shoulders; and he further stated that its eyes appeared
very wild, like those of a horse who had run away,
but that it stood perfectly quiet, and was afterwards
ridden away by a gentleman. In reply to the charge,
it was contended for the defence, that there was no
cruelty, either positive or constructive, practised upon
the animal, that there was no pain inflicted upon it,
and that it suffered in no way from fear or terror ;
that animals, and horses in particular, were constantly
slung or suspended in a less scientific manner than on
the present occasion for surgical purposes, or with the
object of putting them on board ship.- It was proved
by M. Poitevin that before animals were taken up ex-
periments had been made in France before a commis,
sion of scientific gentlemen, when a horse had been
suspended from 15 to 20 hours, and that he took his
food during the time he was so suspended ; and he
further stated that he had ascended with the identical
horse 150 times, and that it never exhibited any agita-
tion, either while being attached to the balloon, during
its ascent, or after its descent, but, on the contrary,
that if the balloon happened to descend in a field the
animal immediately began to graze, and that it never
appeared to suffer on any occasion except once, when
it bled slightly from the nose, owing to the balloon
having attained an unusually great altitude. I may
say in the outset that I must reject all these argu-
ments drawn from the fact of slinging animals either
for surgical purposes or for being put on board ship.
In the former case the animal is slung for the purpose
of relieving it from pain, or of preventing it from in-
juring itself; even if pain is inflicted, it is done with
a view of preventing greater pain. In the other case,
when a horse is put on board ship, whatever is done
is done for what may fairly be termed the legitimate
use of the animal, to transport it from one place to
another, for the use of man. On such occasions no
humane persons would inflict any unnecessary or su-
perfluous pain. But there is a wide and obvious dis-
tinction between indicting pain on such occasions,
where it may be necessary to do so, and doing it
without necessity, and for the purpose only of an
exhibition with the object of making money. All
arguments, therefore, deduced from such facts are
wholly beside the present question. It certainly
appears from the evidence that the mode of sling-
ing adopted by M. Poitevin is superior to that ordi-
narily employed, and that every endeavour is made to
avoid giving pain to the animal ; but the question is,
was there in fact any pain indicted on the horse, or
was it placed under the influence of terror on the day
mentioned in the summons, the 23d of August. No
other act of cruelty committed, if at all, at other
times, or connected with the training of the horse,
would have been admissible upon this charge, nor
were any in point of fact tendered in evidence. Upon
the question of pain there were contradictory and con-
flicting opinions. One veterinary surgeon said that
from the manner in which the horse was suspended it
must have suffered greatly, and have been severely
injured; two others gave it as their opinion that the
animal could not have suffered the least; and as-
suredly the facts in the case bore out this latter
opinion, as after 150 ascents the horse is in perfect
health and condition. As to the influence of fear,
the evidence is more doubtful. The sweat and the
wildness of the horse, spoken to by one witness would
seem to show that he was under the influence of
great nervous excitement; but the wildness was not
noticed by another witness who saw the descent,
and the sweat seems to be explained by the fact
stated, that it was an unusually close evening, one of
the witnesses, a veterinary surgeon, stating that on
that evening several horses in his stable had broken
into a sweat without any other cause that the sultri-
ness of the weather. lam bound to say, therefore,
that it does not appear to me that the animal suffered
from either fear or pain on this occasion. I suggested,
indeed, at the close of the case, whether the placing
an animal, without any paramount necessity, in a
situation of risk, where, in case of accident, it could not
assist itself, was not an act of cruelty. To this it
was answered...first, that it was analagous to the
slinging of horses already mentioned, or placing them
in boxes on railways, an argument I consider I have
already disposed of; and secondly, that it could not
be cruelty if no accident happened. But this is
founded upon a misapprehension of the point sug-
gested ; for the question is, whether the putting an
animal to the risk of an accident is not an act of
cruelty ? I have no doubt myself but that such an
act is one of the most wanton cruelty, but I must also
say that I do not think it is such an act of cruelty as
is within the intention of the Act of Parliament. The
words of the Act are, "If any person shall cruelly beat,
ill-treat, overd-rive, abuse, or torture any animal," he
shall be liable to a certain penalty ; and these words,
I think, contemplate acts of cruelty of a different
character from the one I have juA mentioned. I emn-
not, however, refrain from expressing my opinion, an
opinion that would be of little value if it were not? as