A SHOCKING CASE.
The police evidently do not intend that cruelty to animals shall longer escape punishment, and yesterday another conviction was added to those already recorded. This was a case of heartless cruelty, and we are glad to see that the Magistrate inflicted a fine which is likely to have a deterrent effect upon those who are only too ready to practise wanton brutality upon poor dumb creatures, utterly ignoring the fact that such animals have feelings no less acute than those of their human tormentors. We are sorry that Mr Steggall —a man who cannot attempt to excuse himself on the score of ignorance, a man whom we have always looked upon as a perfect gentleman in all his actions,the father of a family, and one who has had years of experience among stock of all kinds—should so lower and demean himself as to leave an animal to die a lingering and painful death, as was here the case, and we only hope there are some extenuating circumstances that will excuse Mr Steggall to his own conscience, if not to the world. We do not think that Mr Steggall bettered his position, in fact he rather made things worse, by applying to have the fine remitted, on the ground that the animal was old and worthless. That is the mercenary way too many persons treat dumb animals, thinking because they are valueless that all manner of cruelties which maybe inflicted on a valueless animal is quite excusable. The sooner people get this erroneous idea out of their heads, the better for their consciences and their pockets. There is, however, another phase in the case to which we wish to refer. Several of the witnesses swore that there was no appearance of food or water having ever been given to the horse, and one witness found her mouth filled with sand. It did not appear from the evidence that those witnesses, or any of them, attempted to relieve the sufferings of the poor creature. We sincerely trust, for the sake of common humanity, that we are wrong in assuming that thej> did not do what it was manifestly Steggall’s place in the first instance and failing that the place of any man to do; that is, to offer the animal food and water. Surely if it were an act of mercy to raise the animal from the bog, it was none the less so to offer nourishment afterwards, and especially as in this case the parties lived but. a. few yards away ? The river was close by to obtain some water, and to procure a handful of grass would have taken up but little of a man’s time. Are those men, then, who saw daily that the animal was without food, and neglected to give it to her, any the less guilty than he who is guilty by law ? Let no man, who sees a dumb animal thirsty and starving, go by until he has asked himself that question.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GSCCG18890516.2.6
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 299, 16 May 1889, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
500A SHOCKING CASE. Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 299, 16 May 1889, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.