The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1901-11-19
Sued for Cruelty.

Sued for Cruelty.
On Wednesday morning DR.. Howar
R. Faringer, a physician of Mount Holl,
residing on Garden street, appeared at ii
office of Justice Clevenger to answer
charge of cruelty to horse. Micajah T
Matlack represented the Burlingto
County Society for the Prevention c
Cruelty to Animals, in whose name tn
suit was brought. DR.. Faringer did nc
have any counsel.
The law under which this action wa
brought provides punishment by fin
not exceeding 800, to be collected in
civil action as in case of debt.
The witnesses in the case were Mrs
Walter Sherman, Mrs. Samuel Chaffe.
and Harry Woodington, residents of Cherr
street, where the offence was committed
Mrs. Chaffey said she saw the team il
front of house up the street short dis
lance from her residence. DR.. Faringe
came out of the house and the horse
which appeared to be restless, nervou
animal, began to back and rear. Th
doctor Jumped from the carriage and be
gan to kick the horse and hit it over thu
neck and head with what looked like {
carriage whip.
Harry Woodington saw Faringer hi
the animal around the head with whip.
Mrs. Sherman said she was at worE
cleaning room when her attention wa
attracted by a noise in the street. Look
ing out she saw the team of DR.. Faringer
The horse appeared to be fractions anC
DR. Faringer had it by the bride, an6
kicked the animal several times. The MAI
who drives for the doctor was in the car
rage and handed him whip, with which
Faringer hit the horse many times on The
head as we'll as on the stomach. Faringel
looked very white AID angry. The horse
groaned.
This concluded the case for the prosecu
ton and in his own defence DR.. Faringel
said his horse was very spirited ANNA
and while he was in the house attending q
patient his man drove the horse around
the square once or twice. When the doc
tor got in the carriage the horse began to
rear and plunge and finally broke the dash
board. The doctor said he fell out over
the wheel. He hit the horse on the head
with the whip, and the horse made another
plunge, striking Faringer in the stomach
with such force that he gave loud groan'
After he had gotten the horse under con-
troll he struck the animal with the whip
two or three times. He denied kicking
him at all. He showed a small whip which
he said was the one he used. When the
horse struck the doctor in the stomach he
groaned with pain, which he still feels,
and it was his groans and not those of the
horse that Mrs. Sherman heard.
Edgar Baxter, driver for DR.. Faringer.
said the horse was very spirited animal,
in fact he would rather drive a quieter
horse. He saw the the doctor hit the horse
with whip but he did not use the butt
end as that would have knocked the horse
down. Faringer did not kick the horse.
There were no welts on the animal where
the whip was used.
This concluded the testimony and Mr..
Matlack summed up the evidence AT the
conclusion of his remarks Justice eleven
ger said there could not be any doubt that
the horse in question had been severely
punished and the only point was whether
there had been cruelty. The witnesses for
the prosecution had given testimony which,
to his mind, showed that the doctor was
cruel The latter's testimony admitted
that he had struck the horse unnecessarily
with the whip, and the Justice could
not disregard the evidence of Mrs. Sher-
man and Mrs. Chaffey who had testified
they saw the horse kicked. After care
fully considering the case the Justice said
be felt it his duty to administer punish
ment that would be warning to any who
might be tempted to wreak their anger
upon dumb animals. He therefore fined
DR.. Faringer $50 and costs.
Immediately at the conclusion OF this
case, Mr.. Matlack moved action of the
Society against Louis Kramer for cruelty
% dog belonging to Thomas Kennedy.
The latter is night Waterman at the can
ling house of Jones & Ireland, and he had
,he dog, a Scotch terrier, for company
and as an alarm. One morning he found
The animal in great pain with hole in its
side. Washing the wound he discovered
the animal had been shot, and he was in
formed that the deed was done by Kramer.
On the trial the only evidence on that
point was given by small boy who, on
close examination, was unable to positive
Iy connect Kramer with the deed, so the
Justice rendered a decision of no cause of
action.