The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1907-11-13
DR.. H. H, Read Is Acquitted
Of that Charge.
NOTORIOUS CASE ENDED.
As He Il the Husband Of the State W. c
7. U. President, His Trial Attracted
Wide observation-disclosures Society
Was Back Of Prosecution.

Burlington, Nov. lathe jury IN IN,
cruelty case against Dr.. II. h Read Of
shelburne returned a verdict yesterday
afternoon Of not guilty. The rcspon,
dent was immediately discharged upon
the announcement Of the verdict. q. w
Allen Of Essex was foreman Of the Jury.
The respondent was accused Of driving
a lame horse from Sbclburne 70 Durling.
ton, the horse being seized By humane
society officer here aud killed. The case
has attracted unusual attention because
me wife OF the respondent i president
Of the state VI. c. +. u and she drove
with her husband 20 Burlington on the
occasion IN question In delivering the
charge 20 the isify, Judge Powers refer.
red 60 this fact, stating that the Jury
IN considering the case must realize that
neither the Humane society or the Wo.
mems Christian Temperance Union has
anything 10 do With Il Whether the
jurors are IN sympathy with tho former
or are interested IN the methods or pur.
poses OF the latter has nothing to do
with determining the guilt or Innocence
Of DR.. Read. he said also that the coun.
sci on neither side was on trial. and Il
makes no difference whafher the state
or a society pays one OF Tic attorneys
engaged, or whether he Is paid at all
Continuing the charge, Judge Powers
said.
The one question for the jury 20 deter.
mine Is, did the respondent by driving
the horse TO burlington on the day III
question commit an acf Of cruelty with
in tho meaning Of the lawf An other
influences outside Of the evidence as 10
what was done that day are not TO be
considered.
any act committed whereby the horse
was caused 10 suffer uniustiiable pain.
The phrase "unft to work" means much
the same thing. ANY horse would be
unfit 70 work II bis condition when work
ing was such as 20 cause uniustidable
pain or suffering
The state must establish this charge
OF cruelty as defined beyond q reason
able doubt, with the presumption that
at the beginning Of the trial aud
throughout its course, respondent is in.
nocent.
Cruelty means the infection Of unnoc.
essary pain, and pain Of severity. and
IN this connection how far could the
respondent 20 within the meaning Of
the law and not be criminally liable.
All pain inflicted upon animals Is not
cruelty. The horse Is servant and is
treated as such. Pain arises from the
dehorning OF cattle, the castration OF |
colts and the treatment Of disease. Such |
pain is justiaable, and II the discomfort |
Of all apimals wes remedied in such /
cases, many useful horse would be
put out of service
The respondents guilt does not de-
pend upon whether he thought he was
cruel, or whether he was willing TO be
cruel. II the cruelty was evident, then
the charge is established.
The controlling question in the case
Is, what was the actual condition Of the
horse on that day The evidence shows
that he had detective ankle. And this
should aid the jury in determining the1
condition Of the ankle on the day in
question, March 20, 1906 Could the horse
.rayel on that day without suffering
from the kind Of pain defnedi And in
his connection, the weather, condition
If the rodds, the fact that he was draw
ng two people, etc, must be eonsid-
red.