The morning call., 1891-03-06
TRAP SHOOTING.
A Chief Justice Maintains 1t Is
Not Cruel Sport.
A Case Which Was Decided in Favor of g
Member Of the Philadelphia Gun Club.
A Decision Reversed.

fraternity Oh this city that when the East
and West were represented by teams Of celp-
! brated trap shots in shoot at the Haght-
street Grounds. the officers for the Preven-
ticn OF Cruelty to Animals caused some
annoyance to the sportsmen by threatening
them with arrest in case they persisted in
shooting at live birds. The matter was,
however, settled in some way. and the con-
tests were decided as advertised.
The question of whether it is cruel sport
10 shoot at pigeons from trap or not has
been decided recently in the East. The fol-
lowing particulars of case, which will in
terest All lovers of trap-shoOting, are taken
from the Philadelphia Item of February Odd.
THE DECISION.
The Supreme Court this morning delivered
decision in which sport triumphs over
sentiment, and the Judgment of Judge
lerkeS OF Bucks County that pige0n-shoot-
ing Is a form OF cruelty to animals is re-
yersed.
The question arose in the case of the
commonwealth against A. Nelson Lewis.
member OF the Philadelphia Gun Club, who
was indicted under the act of March %,
1869, making it nisdemeannr to wantonly
or cruelty liltreat, overload, beat or other
wise abuse any animal for taking part i'll a
plSPon-shooting match held on the grounds
OF the club at A ndalusla, in Bucks County,
on December IL, 1887.
The jury returned a special verdict, find
ing That ii was the custom OF the association
to hold matches for test of skill of marks
nfanship; that Mr. Lewis attended the match
In December, 1887, and, 'for the purpose OF
azores IlG, fired, with q gun, upon certain
pigeons liberated from trap, killing one
and woundlng another.
- he bird so wounded aighted upon
tree, ana as soon as its wounded condition
was discovered it was killed by Il member of
said club for and on behalf of said defend
ant, according 10 the custom of said club III
regard to wounded birds.
THE BIRD so KILLED
Was Immediately sold for fo0d. according
TO tie rule aud custom of said club Upon
this finding OF facts Judge YrrkeS entered
Judgment in favor of the commonwealth
ard lni 0Scd fine on Mr.. Lew $.
The case was appealed to the Supreme
Court ami argued about ten days agu. In
an opinion accompanying the decision Chief
justice PaXSOn SAYS:
We have the finding Of the jury that the
object OF this association was t0 test the
skill OF its members in workmanship. In
other words, 1t was training-sehool for
sportsmep, In which they could acquire
skill in shooting on the wing.
This being the object of the association,
the jury further found that the defendant
attended Tor the purpose aforesaid. 1t was
concrdej that had he killed his bird he
would not have been liable under the act of
1869, but having merely wounded it was
guilty of
CRUELTY UNDER SAID ACT.
So that the crime consisted not in the fact
of shooting at the bird, but in wounding in-
stead OF instantly killing 1t. From the facts
found BY the jury. the defendant has merely
been punished for want OF skill.
1t Is doubtless true that much pain and
suffering Is often caused TO different kinds
of game by the unSkillfulness Of sportsmen.
A squirrel, badly wounded, may yet crawl
u It's hole and suffer many hours or days;
and so with birds-they are often badly
wounded, and yet manage to get away only
to suffer. 1t was not pretended that the act
applied to such cases. The sportsman in
the woods is not responsible for The accuracy
Of his aim under the act Of 1863
At the Same time 1t Is manifest that much
suffering would be spared wild game If
sp"rtsmrn We're better trained. Skill in
shooting upon the wing can only be gained
by practice.
II is not 50 with inanimate objects There
accuracy OF aim may be secured by shooting
at a mark. 1t is conceded that the sports
man in the woods may test his skill by
SHOOTING AT WILD BIRDS
Why then may he not do the same with a
bird confined in cage and let cut for that
purpose? Is the bird in the cage any better,
or has he any higher rights, than the bird in
the woods?
Both were placed there by the Almighty
for the use of man. They were not given
to him tn be needessly tortured and were
there anything IN the finding Of the jury
to show that the object of this association
was to torture pigeons we would not hesitate
TO sustain the Judgment of the court below.
But no such purpose appears, nor is there
| any finding that the defendant was guilty of
needless and wantOn cruelty.
The bird was immediately killed, as soon
as its condition Was discovered.
a distinction was pressed upon the argu-
menJ between the case of a captive bird and
one at large in the woods.
In the latter case there Is q necessity to
shoot it i'll order to capture it for food or
other lawful purposes. and If wounding re-
suits 1t Is an unavoidable incident, while in
the case CT captive bird no necessity exists
for putting 1t to death in this way. Seine
force NAV be conceded to this as
AN ABsTR ACT PROPOSITION,
But we do not see its application to the facts
Of this case. The right to XIII the pigeon
was ana must be conceded, and there is no
finding of the jury that its suffering was
greater because OF the manner OF its death,
than if it had been killed in some other way
This Is scientific question which do not
feel myself at all competent to pass upon.
Nor 40 think the average luryman is any
better qualified to do so. IL may be that
science in the future will discover the
method of killing pigeon with the least
possible pain. SO far as other animals are
concerned It's perhaps an open question, and
the attempt of we'll meaning humanitarians
In sister State to reduce the suffering
of condemned criminals by putting them to
death by electricity instead of by hanging,
has produced long controversy which can
hardly be regarded as settled. An attempt
has been made, SO far unsuccessfully, to
show that it was unconstitutional because Of
its cruelty.
We do not say there might not be viola
ton OF the act Of 1869 at oting- matches,
but. in olIr view. the facts found by the jury
do lILntr Ii. mil him - i.IIL-