The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER, 18, rjB6l.

and on their return, after the lapse of two or three
minutes, Dr. Phillimore said—Mr. Heath instructs I
me to say, my lord, that he has no other answer to
make than that which he has made.
Dr. Lushington—Thei: I have no option. I
deeply regret that the court is placed in the situa-
tion that it is by Mr. Heath's determination ; but,
according to the terms of the staff ute, I am bound to
pronounce against Mr. Heath the se.itence of depri-
vation, and I do so accordingly, pith costs.
Notice of an appeal to the Judicia? Committee of
the Privy Couucil was immediately given.

CHARGE OF CRUELi'I TO A 110225 E

BY A GENALI,;IIIAN.

At the Edmonton Petty Sessions, held at the
Angel at Edmonton, on Thursday afternoon, Mr.
John Donnithorne Taylor, a gentleman of large
landed property at Southgate. appeared in answer
to a summons taken out against him by the Royal
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
charging him with having on the 3d, 4th, sth, 6th,
7th, and Bth of October, unlawfully and cruelly ill-
treated, abused, and tortured a certain horse, con-
trary to the statute, &c.
The Bench was composed of E. T. Bask, Esq.,
Chairman ; J. Mayer, Esq., F. Newman, Esq., and
Colonel Somerset.

The greatest interest was manifested in this case,
in consequence of the high position the defendant
held in the district, and his reputed connection with I
the magistracy of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Sleigh was specially retained to conduct the
prosecution on behalf of the Society for the Preven-
tion of Cruelty to Animals, instructed by the secre-
tary; and Sergeant Ballantine was specially
brought down for the defence.
Mr. Sleigh, in opening the proceedings, said he
had no doubt that the Bench would receive, as he
did at first, with a great amount of incredulity, the
statement of cruelty he should have to lay before
them. It appeared from his instructions that Mr.
Taylor was a gentleman of large landed property in
the neighbourhood, and that the society, in conse-
quence of information they had received, sent their
chief officer, Mr. Love, down to see him. Mr. Love
called upon him accordingly, and having presented
his card, and told him who he was, entered into a
conversation with him, when the defendant ad-
mitted that the information furnished to the society
was substantially correct, and that what he had
done was done for the purpose of breaking the
horse's temper. Having alluded to the various
sections of the act of Parliament which defined
what cruelty to a horse was, and what the punish-
ment shoed be for such acts, he contended
that if he proved that a horse had been kept for five
days without food it would come under the deno-
mination of cruelly ill-treating a horse, and subject
the person guilty of such conduct to all the pains
and penalties of the act of Parliament.
Mr. William Love stated that he was the chief
constable of the Royal Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals, and had been in their service
for about eight years. In consequence of a commu-
nication which reached the society he proceeded on
the 11th of October to Southgate, and saw Mr.
Taylor, the defendant. He said a complaint had
been made at the office of the society that he (the
defendant) 1 ad a horse tied up in such a manner
that it could not lie down, and that, in fact, he was
starving it to death. Witness said his instructions
from the secretary were to go direct to defendant
and ascertain the facts, rather than make inquiries
in the village, and give rise to scandal. The defen-
dant then said, " Well, I will tell you all about it.
This is a colt I have bred myself, and I sent it
to London to have it broken in, but I expect
that it got into wrong hands, and got knocked
about and spoilt. I found that it was most refrac-
tory, and I beat it till I could beat it no longer, for
I found it would let me beat it to death. When I
found beating useless I said, Well, I will pinch
your stomach, and see if that will bring you to
subjection.' I then put it in a break, and kept it
there for two days, but finding that was of no use,
I took it out and took it to the stable, where I tied
it up so that it could not lie down, and it has not
lain down since. That is about eight days ago.
For the first five days it had nothing to eat and only
a little water to drink. I then gave it a little hay,
and it has had hay once or twice since. I am going
to take it out of the stable to-day, and if it goes all
right it may have some more hay, but if it does
not it shall not have any." Witness said, " How
long do you say that you have kept it without food ?"
and defendant replier], " Let me see—it was
about yesterday week that I first put it into
the break." Witness said, " But have you
not given it anything to eat during that time 9"
and defendant replied, " No, but I have given it a
' little water, you know." - Witness remarked, Are
you sure that none of your men have given it any-
thing to eat ?" and he replied, shaking his head,
"They know better than to disobey my orders."
Witness said, "But are you not afraid of injuring
his constitution ?" and he said "No, I have kept a
horse for 11 days without food without injuring
him." Defendant then offered to show witness the
horse, and the latter went to the stable, where he
saw a man who showed him the horse called
" Wonder," upon which the alleged cruelty had
been practised. The horse was in a low condition,
hollow in its flanks, and its head was banging. It
appeared to be very ill and very anxious; dull and
heavy about the eyes, as if suffering from pain. The
horse was thoroughly out of condition.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine cross-examined the wit-
ness very severely, and in reply to his questions he
stated that he did not know who gave the informa-
tion to the society. He did not know his name, or
whether he was present, nor had he told him to be
present. He did not know whether the name was
known to the society. He did not know whether
it was a discharged groom of the defendant's who
gave the information. He did not know the name
of the man who showed him the horse. He made a
note of the conversation with Mr. Taylor at the
time, and had it with him. (On the tequest of Mr.
Sergeant Ballantine, the note was produced and
examined by him.) The defendant did not say why
he had kept the horse 11 days without food.
By the Bench.—He did not know the age of the
horse, but it was in a low, bad condition. He did
not feel his pulse.
Professor Spooner, of the Veterinary College of
Surgeons. stated that, in his opinion, a horse could
I not be kept without food for a period of five days
without producing to the animal a great deal of
anguish, perhaps not acute pain, but a great deal
of anguish. The horse was a domestic animal,
' which, from its construction, required feeding three
or four times a-day, and to keep a horse for five
days without food was an act of the greatest cruelty.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—We don't want an ex-
-1 pression of your opinions. You are here to give
scientific evidence, and not to give opinions that
, are not asked.

Professor Spooner—l am here to answer ques-
tions and explain certain matters connected with
the case, and I shall do so.

By Mr. Sleigh—The want of food in the intes-
tines would cause spasms, which would put the
horse in acute pain, atid then he would show it by
pawing with his foot. Tying the head of a horse
up, as he had heard the head of the defendant's
horse had been tied up, would disarrange the ner-
vous system, and would, in his opinion, be cruelty
to the animal.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—
Any punishment would disarrange the nervous
system, the same as flogging a boy. The duty of
persona employing punishment was to do it in a
moderate degree ; but it seemed to him that to keep
a horse for five days without food was an act of
gross cruelty. He did not contend that punishment
was not to be applied to animals and persons, but
it was a question of degree, and that was to be
decided by persons that were competent to judge of
it. Some animals were extremely obstinate and
unmanageable. There was not a great variety of
opinion as to the mode by which the subjugation
of a horse was to be come at. There was some
difference of opinion as to the treatment of Rarey
towards his horses. Some thought it a failure.
There were some horses that were jibbers and very
refractory, and could not be cured, while others
could be cured only by measures of severity which,
in his opinion, would be extreme cruelty. He
thought a horse of that kind should be destroyed
rather than resort to the cruelty that would
be necessary to break it in. He 'thought that a
horse might be punished judiciously, the same as a
child. He was not a follower of Rarey ; he thought
that his plan was very consistent, and did not sub-
ject in many respects the animal to much torture.
It was quite possible to convince a horse of the
superiority of his master without resorting to
cruelty.
Re-examined—There were no circumstances, in
his opinion, under which a horse could be kept five
days without food without great torture.
By the Bench—He was aware some horses never
laid down for weeks or months—some not at all;
but these were exceptions to the rule. He did not
lay much stress on the animal being kept standing
up, as it would be able to recover that; but what
he thought most cruel and injurious was depriving
the animal of food for five days.
Mr. Richard Vines, of 3, College-street, Camden
Town, said he had been a professor of the Royal
College of Veterinary Surgeons for fourteen years,
previous to 1858, and from the evidence he had
heard, the horse having his head tied up, so as
to prevent him from lying down, and being kept
without food, was most detrimental to the animal,
and might have caused inflaMmation of _the bowels
and lungs.
'Phis was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine then addressed the
bench for the defence. He said he had now to an-

swer a f. tummons that had been taken out against
a highly-respectable gentleman, and that had been
attempt ad to be supported in a most extraordinary
manner. The prosecution had brought the matter
forward, and had spoken of a conversation that had
taken place at Southgate Park between the officer
and. the defendant, a conversation which be could
not contradict, as there were no witnesses present.
The learned counsel then proceeded to contend that
' the evidence of a single witness, unsupported by
corroborative testimony, was not sufficent to justify
the magistrates in casting a slur upon the character
of a gentleman of the defendant's rank. True,
they had got admissions from the defendant which,
though to a certain extent correct, hai been
coloured by the officer. He then proceeded to con-
tend that the treatment the defendant had subjec-
,,ed the horse to, though severe, had been conducted
an d regulated by experience; that the horse had
been watched every four hours, to see that no injury
had hLA,ppened to it; and that the result of this
treatmeth' had been a great success, as the horse
was now La good, sound, safe, and excellent animal,
perfectly mi.' to ride and to drive, and exhibiting
no signs of inj:iry from the treatment it had been
subjected to.
aid. they were in a difficulty.
Idence of the commission of
The Chairman h"
the exception of the slight
They had no direct ta.-
ehorse. On the other
the alleged offence with
tted that that part of
portion where Love saw li.``
hand, the defendant had adult.
the allegation was true, but had not stated to what
extent. Under these circumstances; the Bench felt
that there was not sufficient evidence to justify
them in convicting the defendant, and they must
therefore dismiss the summons, at the same time
stating that they did not wish to throw any slur
on the society, as they considered it a very admi-
rable one, and that it had, no doubt, acted properly
in taking np this complaint.
The summons was then dismissed.