718 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
intending the proceeding, as well ; and James Johnson was the 
driver of the horses. Now, he would show what was the cruelty. 
The horses began to work at six o’clock in the morning. Messrs. 
Piclcsley, Sims, and Co.’s horses were light animals, and those of 
Mr. Bamlett were heavy. They went on mowing with a respite of 
20 minutes only while a machine was repaired, one hour for refresh- 
ment in the middle of the day, and a few minutes afterwards — 
making about two hours of intermission altogether. They finished 
the work about nine o’clock at night ; so that the horses were out 
of the stable fifteen hours at least. The ground was rough, the 
grass was heavy, and the pace was swift. He would show that the 
utmost a horse ought to do with one of these machines, if fairly 
dealt with, was six acres ; but they got labour out of them necessary 
to mow four more acres. Every horse was distressed. They were 
most willing creatures : so willing that they went until they could 
no longer go. 
Mr. Cater all : Were they urged on ? 
Mr. Harris : We say the horses were too good to require whip- 
ping, and went at their utmost speed and effort. Sims’ horses were 
in good condition before the match — perfectly healthy up to the 
very day. Next day, however, they were prostrate in the stable of 
an inn. The court will hear from veterinary surgeons that the 
animals were in a state of the utmost prostration and anguish. 
They were rolling their heads about, and endeavouring to raise 
themselves, but were so utterly prostrated that they could not get up. 
On the sixth day after the trial their eyes, cheek bones, and shoulder 
bones were all raw from the motion occasioned by their agony, and 
one of them died. It is for the defendants to show what he 
died of. We say he was killed by over-work. The other horse lay for 
another day or two, but never got up. A veterinary surgeon who saw 
the animal used every appliance to restore him, but at length, seeing 
the poor creature writhing in agony, he ordered it to be shot. The 
two animals were worth from 70 to 80 guineas. This was a life 
and death contest between these two firms. It was the value of 
their machines that was at stake, and it did not matter if they 
killed twenty horses, if one firm could beat the other. Mr. Bam- 
lett’s horses were heavy horses ; they went through the same 
amount of labour, and showed the same amount of distress at the 
finish, but next day seemed to be all right. Even supposing that 
Sims’ horses had not died, I think that a bench of magistrates 
would say that ten acres were too much to be mown by two horses 
in one day ; and when they were told that they were at work fifteen 
hours, judging from any principles of humanity, I think they 
would say that these horses were over-driven. If so, the offence 
would be made out. No doubt it was a great contest ; and nobody 
would say that it was an act of cruelty to engage horses in any sport 
or contest if you only use them fairly. But six acres would have 
been a fair test, and why not test them with that amount ? 
Those are the facts ; and I cannot help saying that this is, to 
my mind, about the most cruel case I have ever opened since I 
