The Savannah morning news., 1902-07-19

WHAT is CRUELTY TO A MULEs
A Jury Rules 1t Out of the Horses
Class.

-
Class.
From the New York Sun.
jamestown, N. Y, July 12.-At jury
trial held this week in the municipal
Police Court of this city it was ap-
parently decided that the laws which
have been framed for the prevention of
cruelty to animals do not apply to the
mule.
Expert testimony furnished by veter-
mary surgeons, horSemen of standing
in the community and teamSters long
familiar with the physical and temper
amental qualities of the mule and the
horse proved to the satisfaction of the
jury that treatment which if applied
to a horse might justly be termed
brutal was merely diverting to the
mule. The trial, which resulted in the
acquittal of the defendant, brought
forth certain medico-legal facts which
probably have never been debated be-
fore.
Some time ago James Bailey, a
teamster in the employ of Col. En-
dress, wholesale coal dealer of this
city, was arrested on a charge of
cruelty beating one of a pair of mules
because it refused to pull its share of
load of coal up a steep grade Five
cruelty and wantonly beat the mule
with a club six feet long and four
inches thick"
At the trial A. Frank jerks, attorney
for the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, proved that the
load of coal which the mule refused to
tackle weighed 1000 pounds This
weight, the attorney asserted, was too
great for one pair of mules to haul up
hill and if for no other reason the jury
should return a verdict of guilty
To offset this testimony the defence
called to the stand the oldest and most
experienced teamsters in the city. Each
of these witnesses swore that, where
as 1t might be cruel to attempt TO
compel a team of horses weighing 800
pounds to haul a load of a ton and
half under the conditions described
man would be perfectly justified in
asking two 750-pound mules to nego-
tate the same task.
After Mr.. jerks had placed the wo-
men witnesses on the stand and each
had testified that she had seen Bailey
strike the mule at least six times
across the back and shoulders, Fank
l.. Mott, counsel for the defense, called
DR.. Beider, veterinary surgeon. Both
by education and experience DIR. Ben
der is above the ordinary class of
country "hoss doctors"
He testified that the punishment of
the mule, even as it had been de-
scribed by the prosecution, was by no
means brutal A mule, he asserted.
was different mentally, morally and
physically from almost any other
beast of burden.
The mule was given to rebellion
against authority; if it could avoid it,
1t would not give an adequate return
for its board and lodging. 1t was less
sensitive than a horse. and readily for
got indignities and abuse.
So far as physical punishment was
concerned, DIR. Bender contended that
the animals thick skin made it prac-
tically immune from any acute suffer-
ing which could be inflicted upon 1t
with club. He had examined the
mule soon after it was beaten and did
not seem that it had been ill-treated.
Later in the trial il was brought out
that the animal was ballSy and this led
to the interesting question as to the
cause of balkiness. and as to whether
man was ever warranted in whipping
an animal given 10 this fault
Ike prosecution held that baking. or