VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
717 
that two of those horses were so much over-driven that they were, 
in fact, worked to death. One of them died five or six days after 
the work, and the other suffered so much that, as an act of mercy, 
it was shot. The question was, who was responsible for this gross 
act of cruelty ? It appeared that there were two rival firms of 
mowing-machine makers, Messrs. Picksley, Sims, and Co., and Mr. 
Bamlett. They had been endeavouring to outvie each other a long- 
time in the making of such machines, and some day last month 
they entered into a contest, the conditions of which were prepared 
and signed. The mowing machine of each firm was to mow a piece 
of ground 10 acres in extent. The persons who signed the con- 
ditions would be found to be Joseph Wilding, one of the defendants, 
and the managing director for Messrs. Picksley, Sims, and Co. It 
would be idle for him to say that he did not cause the animals to 
be over driven. He was one who said they should mow ten acres 
in one day. Therefore, he caused the horses to be “ill-treated, 
over-driven, and abused.” So much for Joseph Wilding. But he 
(Mr. Harris) might as well tell the Bench what Wilding said when the 
officer of the society went to him. “ I am responsible and “ I think 
it is a very proper complaint for the society and the police to make.” 
Mr. Addison : That is not the fact, and it is not in evidence. 
I object now to what is mere gossip. 
Mr. Harris continued : Well, then, so much for Joseph Wilding, 
and James Johnson the driver. The articles having been signed, 
judges were appointed, and those judges were three other of the 
defendants — Henry Neild, Christopher Richmond, and William 
Clarke. The horses were not allowed to start until they gave the 
word, and consequently they immediately and directly caused them 
to embark on this tremendous exertion. The judges were there the 
whole day, and saw these horses labouring and distressed, and 
almost fainting, and yet they never attempted to stop the cruel 
proceedings. Let them see what those judges thought of the work 
that was going to be done. They would find from the evidence of 
a gentleman, the surveyor, that when he was requested by Messrs. 
Nield, Richmond, and Clarke, to mark out the several plots of land 
of ten acres each, he said it was too much for any horse to accom- 
plish in one day. Mr. Neild said they agreed that it was a great 
deal too much, and that he wanted it to be reduced, and had sent a 
telegram to the other side, asking if they would reduce the space. 
A telegram came back saying, “Stick to the original agreement.” 
The judges knew it was too much, and yet they suffered the trial to 
go on. In a further conversation on the matter Neild said, “We 
shall be had up for cruelty to animals.” That was actually before 
the match took place. 
Mr. Addison : Get to the facts. 
Mr. Harris : I will give you plenty. Alexander Macgregor, the 
engineer, with another of the defendants, was present. He was 
helping to superintend on behalf of the company, and was, there- 
fore, directly engaged in it as much as the driver himself. Charles 
Cryer, the Preston agent of the company, was also present, super- 
