ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A FARM HORSE MAGISTRATES RESERVE JUDGEMENT At the Leeds West Riding Court, on Tuesday, a farm labourer (boy) was charged with working a horse in an unfit state; a farm foreman was charged with causing the offence; and a farmer with permitting the offence. The farmer did not appear and a solicitor pleaded not guilty for the three defendants. A police constable said that on May 3rd. he saw a bay gelding in Main Street, Scholes, drawing a farm cart. The horse was pulling sideways and witness examined it. On the off-side shoulder there was a running sore, and a sore on the near shoulder. There were others under the saddle, and a wound on the hind leg. The horse was in a poor condition, walking lame, and verminous. The farm labourer told him he had been sent to the station by the foreman. Witness later saw the farmer, who said that the horse did not seem so bad. He said the man to be reported was the one who had got the horse into that condition, and who had left some time ago. This was the first work that the horse had done for some time. Witness also saw the foreman, who said that the horse had only worked once that week with a collar. The foreman said that the horse had been worked with a breast collar until that day. The farmer did not say he had given instructions to take the horse out. The foreman eventually admitted that he must have done, and said it was the only horse available for this job. Another police constable corroborated. An RSPCA Inspector said he went to the farm and saw an aged gelding in a poor condition and emaciated. He then gave particulars of the sores and lameness, and the farmer told him he had told the foreman not to work the horse. He said that if a veterinary surgeon said the horse was unfit for work he would have it destroyed. Witness said the matter would be reported to his Society and the farmer said that the horse would not work again. He added that he would turn it out for a month or two. The foreman looked after the horse, and it had been well fed. He said he had seen the horse in the stables. In reply to the Chairman, witness said the farmer was not then confined to the house. When he saw the foreman, the latter remarked that there were plenty of worse horses knocking about. He said he was out when the horse was sent out, probably by one of his sons. There was a journey to the station and this was the only horse they had for it. The farm labourer told the witness that the horse had only worked once that week with a collar. A veterinary surgeon said the horse was poor and emaciated and had sores. The most humane thing would have been to have it destroyed. In his opinion it was totally unfit for work. The horse looked neglected so far as feeding, grooming and attention were concerned, and work would cause it considerable pain. - The solicitor said the horse had the same chance of feeding as the others, but witness suggested it had not had the chance of getting food. The solicitor; "You can't make a horse eat if it does not want to." Witness: "Most horses would eat if they had a chance." In reply to the Chairman, the solicitor said that the farmer had been infirm for four months. For the defence, the solicitor said that the point at issue was whether this horse was working with the permission of either of the three defendants. It was the case with regard to the farm labourer because he had been working it. There was no evidence to show that the farmer was aware at any time on this day that the horse was working. The Chairman said it appeared perfectly clear that the foreman knew the condition of the horse. He thought the labourer was the least culprit of all. The solicitor suggested that a principal was not responsible for a criminal act of his servant. The Chairman said evidence showed that the farmer was able to go about his farm, and did not suggest that he was unable to know the condition of his horse. The solicitor said he would go as far as to say that if the farmer knew the condition of the horse the prosecution must prove he had permitted the horse to work. The Chairman said: "Is he not liable inasmuch as he did not give instructions that the horse should not be worked?" The solicitor then cited a case from 'Stone' and the magistrate's clerk referred to another, whereupon the Chairman said that the judgement would be reserved for a week, so that the magistrates could see the case referred to. They would dismiss the case against the boy (the labourer). |
|
CRUELTY TO A HORSE
The adjourned charges against the farm foreman of Barwick and the
farmer of Barwick, of causing a horse to be worked in an unfit state, reported
last week were heard at the Leeds West Riding Court, on Tuesday. At the last
hearing, the solicitor who defended submitted a ruling from the King's Bench
Division that made the owner responsible, and the Chairman agreed that was
so. The RSPCA Inspector was the prosecutor. The solicitor called the foreman, who said he had been employed by the farmer about six weeks up to the time of the occurrence in question. The horse had only worked a week the whole time he had been there. It had been on the road once, on 3rd. of May, the day when it was seen by the police officer. On that occasion, witness did not know it was out. He gave no instructions to the boy to take it out, and the first he knew about it being out was when he came back at night By the time the officers came on the scene he had been told all about it. Two other horses were available for work at the time. these being in the field with grass knee deep. - In answer to the Chairman, witness said the horse went with a load to the station. The farmer's son said he told the boy to yoke the horse about noon. As other horses were available, the boy ought not to have yoked the one he did. His father was in the house and knew nothing about the instruction. The Chairman said it was clear to the bench that both defendants were responsible as it was up to them to see the horse was not working. A police superintendent stated that the farmer had been before the court on a similar offence this year. The farmer was fined £5 and the foreman £1. No costs were applied for. The cruelty was clearly proved. Although this was probably not an isolated incident, the authorities - police and magistrates - together with the appropriate charitable organisation treated the affair with great seriousness and the fines were heavy by the monetary standards of the day. |