The Sun.
London, England, 1866-07-02 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

SERIOUS AND UNPROVOKED AssAurr.—Charles Markant,
a cabinetmaker, was charged before Mr. Knox with the
following violent assault on Michael Hay, a labourer, liv-
ing in Grafton-court, Marylebone.
The complainant (who was compelled to walk with a
stick) said—Last night, about half-past 11, I got off an
omnibus at the corner of Tottenham-court-road, having
my uncle and other members of my family with me, and
while walking up the road the prisoner ran against my
uncle. I asked him why he did so, and he went a short
distance and then returned and knocked the pipe out of
my mouth, and caught hold of me and swung me round,
throwing me into the road, and then kicked me severely
on the ankle, injuring me so much that 1 could not walk,
and was obliged to be taken to the University Hospital in
a cab.

Mr. Knox—Had you given the prisoner any provocation ?
The Complainant—Not the slightest.

Mr. Knox—Was the prisoner drunk ?
The Complainant—He was not quite sober.

Mr. Knox— You wore attended to at the hospital ?
The Complainant—Yes, sir.

The Prisoner—lt was accidental.

Thomas Boyce, 55 E—l saw the prisoner running up
Tottenham-court-road, followed by a number of persons.
I took the complainant to the hospital and the prisoner to
the station.

The constable handed the magistrate a certificate signed
by Mr. Morrison, cne of the surgeons of the University
Hospital, to the effect that the complainant's ancle wAs
injured.

The complainant —I have lost my work through it..
Mr. Knox—l think it a very cruel matter. A man is
coming home peaceably with some members of his family,
and a drunken man runs against one of them and then as-
saults the complainant and injures him severely, causing
him to lose his work, and to be lame for some time to come.
I shall remand the prisoner for a week, and I would advise
him to make the complainant ample compensation, and if
he does not I shall deal with him severely.

THAMES.
CRUELTY TO A HORSE.—SHOCEING CiASE: William
Stephen; a contractor for scavengering, of Green-bank,
Wapping, and Thomas Porter, a carter in his employ,
appeared before Mr. Paget on a charge of cruelly ill-
treating and torturing a horso by striking it on the head
and working it in an unfit state.
Mr. W. Love, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animal; conducted the prosecution.
The case was originally before Mr. Paget on Saturday
morning, when Porter only was charged. A police-con-
stable named John Shephard, No. 43 H, saw the prisoner
driving a horse and cart. He was beating the animal over
the legs with his whip, and after he had done so he struck
the horse repeatedly over the head and nose. Shephard
remonstrated with the prisoner, and asked him what was
the matter with the horse that he should use it in that
manner, to which he replied, with a profane oath, "I wish
the -- would drop." The constable, on removing the
horse's collar, found extensive sores on its back, and its
sufferings were great. Mr. Paget examined the horse in
the yard adjoining the court on Saturday, and its appear-
ance excited horror and disgust. He ordered a summons
to issue against Mr. Stephens for sending the horse out to
work in a cart in the state it was in. Mr. Stephens now
attended to the summpns, and the case was again gone
into.

Mr. Paget said the conduct of Porter was very improper
and absurd, and that it was not the way to get a horse
along to beat it over the head and nose. He fined the
prisoner 10s.

- The case against Mr. Stephens was then gone into, and
Porter was called as a witness, and said his master desired
him to take the horse out, and knew the condition it was
in. He called his master's attention to the state of the
horse on Friday night, and he was told to work it in the
usual manner in the streets.
2.1 r. Stephens, in defence, said the hair was over the
wounds on Friday night, and he did not know the horse
was in the bad state in which it now seemed to be. The
hair had been rubbed [off by mismanagement. If he had
known the horse had been so bad he would not have al-
lowed it to be worked.

Mr. Paget wished the owners of horses should know
that he had the power to send them to prison for three
months and to be kept to hard labour for cruelty to ani-
mals and for sending out animals to be tortured, for it was
torture to work a horse in the state in which the poor horse
was. If he found cases of this kind continued, he would
not inflict fines, but send owners and contractors
to prison and to hard labour, without the option of paying
any penalties. The defendant Stephens was the contractor
for this district, and had set a bad example to his men.
The defence set up was false and absurd. The wounds on
the horse had existed some time. He never saw a horse
in such a frightful condition. He fined the defendant £5
and costs. It was the first case against the defendant. A*
second conviction for a similar offence would end in im-
prisonment.