162 CRUELTY TO HORSES. 



not set forth personal knowledge of tlio facts complained 

 of.(ct) It was argued that the statute was intended to strike 

 only at wanton and intentional cruelty, but this was over- 

 ruled. Lord Neaves observed : — " I would certainly say 

 that it is not necessary by the statute, in order to establish 

 the offence, that any such intention should be proved. If a 

 person neglect to do a thing which is his duty and within 

 his power, and thereby ill-treat, torture, or abuse any animal, 

 that would equally fall within the scope of the statute as 

 where there is wilful and Avanton cruelty." In another case, 

 a charge of cruelty by a cab-driver, " by causing or allowing 

 his horse to remain yoked to a cab on the public road, during 

 the night of the 18th, and morning of the 19th October, 

 1881, said horse suffering severely from hunger, cold, and 

 exposure, in consequence of which said horse suffered great 

 and unnecessary pain," was held relevantly libelled (diss. Lord 

 Young), and the interpretation of the statute in Wilson v. 

 Johnson was held sound. (6) But where a conviction was 

 obtained against A, the owner of a horse, for contravening 

 the statute by causing his horse to draw a cart when it was 

 unfit to be worked owing to an open sore beneath the 

 saddle, it was set aside on appeal on the ground that at the 

 time of the alleged cruelty the horse was worked by A's 

 servant, and that it was not proved that A had any personal 

 knowledo'e of the condition of the horse at the time — such 

 personal knowledge, or at least good reason to believe that 

 suffering would be caused to the animal, being regarded 

 necessary to the commission of the offence, (t;) The mere 

 fact of the servant over-driving his master's horse, will not 

 absolve the master from blame, if he knows of its being 

 over-driven, and there is reasonable evidence of its having 

 been over-driven, such as the death of the horse from sheer 

 exhaustion. ((Z) 



(«) Wilson V. Johnston, 1874, 1 R. (J.C.) 16. 

 {h) Anderson v. Wood, 1881, 9 R. (J.C.) 6. 



(c) WrigJtt V. liowan, 1890, 17 R. (J.C.) 23. 



(d) Carmichnd v. Wdsh, 1S87, 1 White, 333. 



