WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY 
within the definition “ domestic/’ so as to be dealt with 
under the Act. The magistrate said he should not decide 
against the defendant as to the size of the box, but on 
the question that they had not been supplied with water 
from the time they were packed, and their cries showed 
they were suffering from want of water. Counsel said 
birds of this description needed but little water. The 
magistrate said it would require strong evidence to make 
him believe that birds could be sent such a distance with- 
out water. It was not a case for a heavy penalty, but he 
should convict in order that attention might be called to 
the proceedings, and he would readily grant a case to the 
superior court if asked for. He merely, therefore, ordered 
the defendant to pay ten shillings and two shillings costs 
only. 
On this case I published at the time the following 
comments : — 
Having during the last thirty years kept many hundreds 
of parrots under my charge, I can say most positively that 
parrots do not require luater. Many species die in con- 
sequence of drinking water. Thousands of the small 
Australian parrots are brought alive and in the most 
perfect health and condition from Australia to London, 
the food consisting of dry canary-seed alone. It has been 
found that the birds become sick and die on the voyage 
if supplied with water. The valuable collection of parrots 
in the Zoological Gardens of London (the finest in the 
world) is kept ivithoiit water. The charge of cruelty, 
therefore, in the case of Cross was unfounded. 
This, however, is not the only wrong inflicted, the 
conviction was illegal ; the law, or Act of Parliament, was 
passed for the prevention of cruelty to domestic animals. 
Parrots are not domestic animals. The parrots sent by 
Cross are all wild caught birds, and mere tameness cannot 
322 
