Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-11-06

To the Editor Of the Dispatch:

To the Editor Of the Dispa'ch'
Nv attention has been called to the
cards of Rev. Il. n. Pitt and hin Mon-
tague, Esq. i'm the Dispatch tills -;
Dr. Pollard and Mr.. Gwaltney Tor Cruelty
10 a dog. and as ! prosecuted these cases
as counsel for the society q .ilinh ~, =.
proper that ] should be briehy hear ,ao ai
connection with the very s"hpie i'e"'
questions involved. .,
The reverend gentleman can De excuseu
for his ignorance of the statute IN quea
ton. and / must suppose that MI. Mon-
tague has failed to refresh MS memory vi
TO refer to the statute. -,
The portion of il involved Is as follows:
THAT any person who overrides, over
drives. overloads. tortures ili-uea.s; &c, OF
p,utilates. or kills any animal wnetner
belonging TO himself or another. or ue-
prives any animal of necessary SUSIE
nance. food. or drink. or causes any OF
such animal. permits such acts 10 pe
done by another, or who wilfuliy SETS on
foot, instigates, engages In, or III any
way furthers any act or cruelty 10 any
animal" shall be deemed guilty OF
n misdemeanor, and. upon. conVicIlOh
thereof shall be fined not more than slV'
or confined In Jail for "a period not eA-
ceeding twelve months, or both "a
by DIR. Pollard's own admission M, NJ;
without any expression OF regret, did
out of a second-story window. measuIsd
by actual measurement, "a feet from the
hard ground or brick pavement below
No witness denied the testimony OF several
witnesses for the prosecution, tnat tne
breath was knocked out OF the doe
BODY: that he lay still for time. until
released from his fantastic wrappings anu
set on his feet. q number or Wi!nesses
testified that he did limp; the witnesses
for the defence testified that they diu
not see him limp. 1t was IN testimony
that the dog was turned over 10 Jaihtoi'
and could not be found. ,a,
The simple question to be determlnen
was whether such a throwing out from
such window was ill-treatnent or an
act of cruelty, and the Court decide1
that it was not ill-treatment or an act Oh
cruelty for the testimony was not con.
vincing that the dog was manned OF
limped. it,, Al.
Montague need not be reminded ,hat
criminal intent Is presumed from com
mission of criminal act. He does not
consider that the statute was ever III
tended to cover such "A case as the one
under review. j answer that 'he statute
was intended to cover Just what IL uoes
cover in terms. ill-treatment or Cruelty
done or caused TO be done by the accused.
| thought at the time, and am stu con-
WINGED that the case was fully MADE OUT
for the prosecution. and should nave Deeh
80 decided.
An allusion has been made in both of
the cards TO the expression OF Dr. WOOD
purpose to try TO have lawyer elected TO
iii the office OF Police Justice. go
Dr. Wood is a very earnest man, WIN
very firm convictions, and feeling salts
fled as he did that this case was no,
settled as a lawyer would have settieu
IL. he not unnaturally allowed his views
To find expression. A.,
For myself, 1 do not yield to Mr.. Mon
tague or any other friend that the Ponce
Justice has In kindly and friendly feei,
ing or I'm appreciation of his many good
qualities but this does not prevent me
from thinking that in this case he made
a mistake. go, AL,
| am not kindly disposed toward nght-
view of the legal questions raised by
one OF my brethren, | think II but right
that ! should come to the rescue OF my
society. cr-,co>-
Respectfully. A. Il. GOIGON.