INDICTMENT FOR CRUELTY. 545 



fore and after the injury may state his opinion as to the 

 amount of damage, though unskilled in veterinary or medi- 

 cal science.^ ^^ 



The animal need not be fully described in the indictment.'-^ 

 A period of time instead of a single date may be alleged 

 where the ofifense involves continuous action.^ ^^ The over- 

 working and the neglect properly to feed and shelter cattle 

 may be charged as one offense ;^^^ so may ill-treating a horse 

 and causing it to be ill-treated.^^* Under the English statute 

 the defendant was held liable to summary conviction upon an 

 information charging him with having cruelly ill-treated a 

 horse by causing it to be worked in an unfit state, although 

 the ofifense proved was that he had knowingly counselled the 

 horse's owner to cause the act of cruelty to be done.^-^ 



126. Malicious Mischief to Animals Whether malicious 



mischief to property was an indictable ofifense at common law 

 is a disputed question. In an article reviewing some of the 

 cases favoring the doctrine it is said : "We cannot but think 

 that some of these cases have lost sight of the true distinc- 

 tion between crimes and private trespasses and, in their ab- 

 horrence of the wanton cruelty and wicked disposition ex- 

 hibited by the defendants in the several cases, have forgotten 

 that after all there was no more injury to the public in de- 

 stroying private property wantonly and maliciously than in 

 any other manner, and they seem rather to declare what the 

 law should be than what it then was. It is clear that the vari- 

 ous acts now punished as maHcious mischief, such as destroy- 

 ing trees, killing domestic animals, etc., were not indictable in 

 England until made so by statute. . . . 'Any damage arising 

 from the mischievous disposition, though only a trespass at 

 common law, is now by a multitude of statutes made 



'=" Johnson v. State, 37 Ala. 457- "" Com. v. McClellan, loi Mass. 34- 

 ''' State V. Bosworth, 54 Conn. i. ''" Ibid. 

 "* Bartholomew v. Wiseman, 56 J. P- 455- 

 '■^ Benford v. Sims, [1898] 2 Q. B. 641. 

 35 



