JURISPRUDENCE. 
403 
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, this horse was taken to their 
headquarters, and there and immediately after, a critical examination 
was made of his condition by the veterinary surgeon, which he has 
stated, and the result, to you. 
If you have become satisfied that the surgeon was justified by his 
extended and critical examination that the horse was afflicted at that 
time with chronic glanders, and further, that the prisoner had the dis¬ 
eased horse in his possession at the time (whether he was or was not the 
owner), then I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, as a matter of law, 
that it becomes your duty to convict him of the charge set out in the in¬ 
dictment. The case is so simple, gentlemen, that I do not feel it nec¬ 
essary that I should say more. The law is not blind in its practical 
demonstration. It appeals to your several understandings and intelli¬ 
gence, and was instigated by righteous and benevolent motives. The 
ill-usage of a horse, gentlemen, when it is my misfortune to witness it, 
.awakens a deep feeling of indignation in my heart. I do not know how 
it may be with you. 
The law in this regard was made for a wise and benevolent purpose. 
I charge you that if you believe, free from a reasonable doubt, that the 
prisoner had this horse in his possession while suffering in the manner 
and from the cause assigned, it will become your duty to find him guilty 
of the offence as charged. It is for you to solve whether any man, even 
with a superficial knowledge of its diseases—of a horse which was so 
marked as this one seems to have been by the testimony, would not have 
had some definite idea of his sick condition. The first witness says 
positively that the prisoner was found in the possession of the horse at 
the time of his arrest, and the testimony of the prosecution as to his 
then condition is uncontradicted. There has been no testimony offered 
by the defence, and it remains for you to determine whether the pri¬ 
soner is guilty or innocent of the charge. The question is a simple, one 
which is now left for you to determine. 
By a Juror:—I would like to ask whether the ignorance of the 
Section of the Sanitary Code would make any difference ? 
The Court :—Mr. Juror, it would be an absurdity to take that pro¬ 
position into consideration. Under such circumstances there are 
plenty of men who having committed crime might readily say they did 
not think they were doing wrong ; they might commit murder on the 
same pretext. 
(Counsel for the prisoner excepts.) 
The jury without leaving their seats found the prisoner guilty. 
