314 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
A subsequent examination of the animal revealed injuries of a frightful 
nature, and the evidence of sevei al respectable witnesses proved beyond 
all doubt that the u(;t of barbarity was perpetrated by the defendant 
deliberately and designedly. 
Mr. Love, after xialling the attention of the bench to the clause in the 
Act of Parliament which empowers the justices^ to commit offenders to 
prison for three calendar months, said he felt it his duty also to press for 
compensation, to be paid by the defendant to the owner of the animal, under 
the fourth section of the Act. lie confessed that his only view in doing 
this was to secure for the defendant an additional punishment for the 
atrocious act he had been guilty of, for he believed the defendant was 
unable to pay any money, and he might be imprisoned in default. 
The case having been proved. 
The Chairman, after the bench had consulted together, said this was 
the most horrible case that had ever been brought before that bench; he 
could not have supposed that any sane man living would be guilty of so 
wicked and disgusting an act of inhumanity. The defendant had borne 
a very good character up to the time he committed this act, and letters 
which he produced from respectable persons showed that he was always 
kind to the animals under his care; but for this the bench would have 
committed him for the full term of imprisonment. The decision now was 
that for the cruelty to the animal he be committed to Maidstone gaol for 
two calendar months, with hard labour; and, in addition, that he pay £o 
as compensation to the owner of the animal, or suffer a month's hard 
labour in Maidstone gaol. 
The prisoner was tlien conveyed to Maidstone to undergo the imprison¬ 
ment, with hard labour, for three calendar months. 
PLYMOUTH GUILDHALL. 
Before W. Burnell, Esq. 
UNWHOLESOME MEAT.—ROT IN SHEEP. 
William Slocombe, a butcher, carrying on business in King Street, 
was summoned to answer the complaint of Mr. Rowley, Inspector of 
Nuisances, for exposing for sale six sheep unfit for human food. Mr. 
Whiteford, Town Clerk, appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Board of 
Health. In opening the case, he said that he had received instructions 
from the Board of Health to prosecute the defendant, for all must acknow¬ 
ledge that it was a very serious complaint. The public placed confidence 
in defendant, and expected him to supply his customers with food fit for 
them to consume; but instead of so doing he had stocked his shop with eight 
sheep, six of which were totally unfit for any human being to eat. The 
law was very severe on persons who were guilty of such a breach of it; 
but the board did not wish to press the case against defendant, though he 
well deserved the severest penalty the law could inflict. The Board of 
Health, who brought this case, as well as others, before the Bench for the 
good of the public, would be content if the magistrates issued an order 
for the carcasses of the six sheep to be destroyed. 
It appeared that Inspector Rowley, the evening before, was passing by 
King Street, and observed in defendant’s shop six sheep that had just 
