Injuries to Cows.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 593, 11 April 1891, Page 3

Injuries to Cows.

A CIVIL case of more than ordinary intex eat to the general public—from the fact that all are consumers of mi k—was heard by Mr Booth on Thnriday afternoon. G Farmer, dairyman, sued T. Maidens fur £lO, damage alleged to h <ve been done oowa Mr B. N. Jones appeared fur p ain iff and Mr L. Rees for defendant. The plaintiff deposed that the milking of the cows had beer entrue ed to Maidens, whilf be. hin»elf was away at the Ksrska. On returning, from word be had recUved, he wens and inspected the cows, finding that one was so badly injured as to be unable to walk, and onuln only be,. to relieve the animal of pain, while of the other milking cow* two especially had been injured, but not so seriously as the one fivfct mentioned. That one defendant admitted having hit with a spade, and offered to pay between two and three pounds for it, but plaintiff said -it would take jCS to cover the damage. The other cows damaged had almost gone off milking. Witness strongly denied that he had at any time himself abused the cows, or that anyone else could have done so. The smew of the cow’s leg had been cut by the spade, and she bad unable to walk. A boy employed by vhe plaintiff deposed that he had peen' Maidens repeatedly abuse the cows, by kicking them, and in the case of the cow specially mentioned he had dellbeiately thrown the spade at her while she was bailed up. He had been (lightened to tell Mr Farmer, because Maidens had thieatened him In his defence Maidens admitted having injured the one cow, blit said be bad only Thrown the flat of the spade Bi her while be was in a passion. He accounted for the injuries to the others by the probability of their having got foul of the wire fenc*, and he acvu?ed boib the previous witnesses of having themselves inflicted pruefty upon the animals. In cross-examina tion be could not call to mind any other cow® that bad been damaged by the wire fence than those be had been milking. Mr Farmer himself seldom milked the cows. On coming back from the Karaka plaintiff had told him to clear off at once from the place, and he said he would go on a week’s notice. The case being concluded Mr Booth said he thought the defendant had bad an escape—he did not know for how long—in his employer not going to the Sergeant and laying a criminal rnfQrination. For abusing poor anima’s in that way defendant might be sure he would have been severely punished. He had not heard for a long time of a more cruel thing than to abuse and cut the sinews of a poor brute tied up by the he»d io a bail. Mr J ones said the Sergeant had already Keen informed of the matter, and he was going to judge from thp-evidenee brought out in that case whether he 4p0u14 take action. Mr Rees, in addressing the Bench, said he could only make an ad miseracordiam appeal, He did not with to bolster up anything in the form of cruelty— [Mr Booth : I am sure you Would notj—and he would ask His Worship to look at it in the light that the defendant had when in a passion used the broadside of the spade to the first mentioned cow, not intending to hurt her, and that the other cows bad been injured by the barbed wire fence. The defendant was only a lad who had not had the benefit of much experience, pnd the damages should be qiade as light as possible, especially as Mr Jones had eaid criminal proceedings might be taken. Mr Jones said they claimed* for no special damages, and the amount stated was nothing in comparison with the loss sustaioed^tbey. Wished to do nothing unfair. Judgment was Ibtn given for £6 and £1 Ils costs.