728 
HORRIBLE CRUELTY TO A HORSE. 
exceptions to the rule. He did not lay much stress on the 
animal being kept standing up, as it would be able to 
recover that; but what he thought most cruel and injurious 
was depriving the animal of food for five days. 
Mr. Richard Vines, of 3, College Street, Camden Town, 
said he had been connected with the Royal Veterinary 
College for fourteen years previous to 1838, and from the 
evidence he had heard, the horse having his head tied up, so 
as to prevent him from lying down, and being kept without 
food, was most detrimental to the animal, and might have 
caused inflammation of the bowels and lungs. 
This was the case for the prosecution. 
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine then addressed the Bench for the 
defence. He said he had now to answer a summons that 
had been taken out against a highly respectable gentleman, 
and that had been attempted to be supported in a most extra¬ 
ordinary manner. The prosecution had brought the matter 
forward, and had spoken of a conversation that had taken 
place at Southgate Park between the officer and the defendant, 
a conversation which he could not contradict, as there were 
no witnesses present. The learned counsel then proceeded 
to contend that the evidence of a single witness, unsupported 
by corroborative testimony, was not sufficient to justify the 
magistrates in casting a slur upon the character of a gentle¬ 
man of the defendant’s rank. True, they had got admissions 
from the defendant which, though to a certain extent correct, 
had been coloured by the officer. He then proceeded to 
contend that the treatment the defendant had subjected the 
horse to, though severe, had been conducted and regulated 
by experience; that the horse had been watched every four 
hours, to see that no injury had happened to it; and that 
the result of this treatment had been a great success, as the 
horse was now a good, sound, safe and excellent animal, per¬ 
fectly safe to ride and to drive, and exhibiting no signs of 
injury from the treatment it had been subjected to. 
The Chairman said that they were in a difficulty. They had 
no direct evidence of the commission of the alleged offence 
with the exception of the slight portion where Love saw the 
horse. On the other hand, the defendant had admitted that 
part of the allegation was true, but had not stated to what 
extent. Under these circumstances the Bench felt that 
there was not sufficient evidence to justify them in convicting 
the defendant, and they must therefore dismiss the summons, 
at the same time stating that they did not wish to throw any 
slur on the society, as they considered it a very admirable 
one. 
The summons was then dismissed. 
