583 
mr. Arnold's decision. 
had gone through the evidence. That although the evidence 
had been to show physical pain on the one side, and to rebut 
it on the other, another question arose to which Mr. Lewis, 
he thought, might have addressed himself—that of a horse 
being placed in a situation of risk, and deprived by his posi¬ 
tion of the means of assisting himself in difficulty . It was a 
different matter if a rational being pleased to do it. If a man 
were to place a child in such a position, that in a moment of 
danger it could not assist itself, it was a question whether it 
would not be cruelty; and the question arose whether an 
animal strapped up, in case of anything going wrong, it would 
not be dashed to pieces. The Court then adjourned. 
Mr. Arnold’s Decision. 
{Abridgedfrom the 1 Times / 14 th Sept . 1852.) 
— 1 must reject all those arguments drawn from the fact of 
slinging animals, either for surgical purposes or being put 
on board of ship. In the former case, the animal is slung 
for the purpose of relieving it from pain, or of preventing it 
from injuring itself. Even if pain is inflicted, it is done with 
a view of preventing greater pain. In the other case, where 
a horse is put on board of ship, whatever is done, is done for 
what may fairly be termed the legitimate use of the animal, 
to transport it from one place to another for the use of man. 
On such occasions no human persons would inflict any un¬ 
necessary or superfluous pain; but there is a wide and 
obvious difference between inflicting pain on such occasions, 
when it may be necessary to do so, and doing it without 
necessity, and for the purpose of an exhibition, and for 
making money. All arguments therefore deduced from such 
facts are wLolly beside the present question. It certainly 
appears from the evidence, that the mode of slinging adopted 
by M. Poitevin is superior to that ordinarily employed, and 
that every endeavour is made to avoid giving pain to the 
animal; but the question is— was there, in fact, any pain in¬ 
flicted on the horse, or was it placed under the influence of terror 
on the day mentioned in the summons, the 23d of August? 
No other act of cruelty committed, if at all, at other times, or 
connected with the training of the horse, w T ould have been ad¬ 
missible on this charge; nor w r as any, in point of fact, tendered 
in evidence. Upon the questions of pain, there w r ere contra¬ 
dictory and conflicting opinions. One veterinary surgeon 
(Daw^s), said, that, from the manner in w hich the horse w r as 
suspended, it must have suffered greatly, and been severely 
VOL. xxv 4 i 
