178 
Contemporary Agricultural Law. 
overstocked and that the cow suffered pain, but as it was an 
old established custom in the district to expose cows for sale in 
this condition they dismissed the summons. The Court of 
King’s Bench, before whom the matter came on a case stated, 
held that where unnecessary suffering is caused to an animal 
by the owner an offence is committed against Section 1 of the 
Protection of Animals Act, 1911, even if the act is done in 
pursuance of a custom and for commercial reasons. They 
therefore remitted the case to the justices with a direction to 
convict. Darling, J., in the course of his judgment, said : “ The 
case proved that the pain was unnecessary so far as the cow 
was concerned, and the respondent did cause unnecessary 
suffering by omitting to have her milked, or preventing her 
from being milked by muzzling the calf. If the custom of 
doing this did exist it was time it ceased, and people must find 
some other means of judging whether a cow was a good milker 
or not.” 
North Staffordshire Railway v. Waters (30 Times L.R., 
121) was another case where cruelty to animals was charged. 
On February 5, 1913, eleven cows were brought to Uttoxeter 
Station on the North Staffordshire Railway for conveyance to 
Wolverhampton and were put into a railway truck. They were 
in a manifestly wretched and emaciated condition, and some of 
them were diseased. On their arrival at Stafford two of the 
cows were found to be dead and four others were dying and 
had to be shot. Five of these were tuberculous and the 
disease was of long standing. It was said that when received 
at Uttoxeter the cows were, owing to infirmity, disease or 
exhaustion, quite unfit to be carried by rail at all and could not 
be so carried without unnecessary suffering during transit, but 
although the attention of the railway company’s servants was 
admittedly drawn to their condition, they took no steps to 
satisfy themselves that the cows could be carried without 
unnecessary suffering. The prosecution was under Clause 12 
of the Animals (Transit and General) Order, 1912, made under 
the Disease of Animals Act, 1894, which is as follows : “No 
animal shall be permitted by the owner thereof, or his agent, or 
any person in charge thereof, to be carried by railway if ovring 
to infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue, or any other cause it 
cannot be carried without unnecessary suffering during the 
intended transit by railway.” The owners of the coavs were 
convicted of an offence under this Order, and did not appeal. 
The railway company were also prosecuted and convicted by 
the justices, and an appeal to Quarter Sessions was dismissed. 
When the case came before the King’s Bench Divisional Court 
the appeal of the railway company was allowed on the ground 
that the Order in saying “ permit to be carried ” did not mean 
