Huddersfield chronicle Tuesday 7 April 1874
A Glanderd Horse at the Fair. — Benjamin Stephenson, hawker, of Leeds, was charged on remand with having, on the previous Tuesday, unlawfully ex- posed in the March fair a horse affected with the glanders. — Mr. Withers read the 57th section of the Act, under which the case was taken, and pointed out that for such an offence the magistrates were empowered to inflict a penalty not exceeding £20. The horse in question had been taken into the fair, where there were hundreds of horses ; and when spoken to about it he took it to the Elephant and Castle stables, thus Discharged. — Thomas Gannon, labourer. Manchester-street, and William Parker, pedlar, Swallow-street, . dendant said he bought the horse at the fair. Now he was the only man who had exposed it, to the Knowledge of the police, and until he found the person of whom he bought the horse, he was alone, responsible. A transaction had taken place; but the defendant was associated with a number of men who were "up to" transactions of that kind. He lodged with the daughter of a dealer in horses commonly known as a " knacker." The horse in question had come from Knottingly to the fair, and he might mention that the police of Knottingley had quite recently destroyed a glandered horse belonging to the person referred to. He wished the magistrates to exercise caution before coming to the conclusion that the transaction alluded to was a bona fide one — Police-constable Firth gave evidence as to a transaction having taken place. He examined that the horse in the yard adjoining the Elephant and Castle, and from the appearance of the muscles and the sores, which covered its jaws, he suspected that it was a case of glanders. Anyone could see that something was seriously the matter with the horse. Defendant had said he bought the horse at the fair. — Richard Ainley spoke to having seen the horse, which was running at the nose and presented all the symptoms of glanders. The defendant had been going about with a party of six or eight men, who appeared to be horse dealers like him. Six hours were spent in a search after the man of whom the defendant said he bought the horseof, but they did not succeed in finding any such person. — Mr. Kirk, causing the landlord to looe some money. The veterinary surgeon, gave evidence to the effect that it was a very bad case of glanders. In cross-examination he admitted that the symptoms of catarrh in several respects resembled those of glanders. The horse was afterwards removed and shot as required by the Act. Mr. Withers, sworn, said he had examined the horse on the Tuesday. Defendant said he had bought the horse, but although every opportunity was given they were unable to find the party of whom he had bought it. He was apprehended near the Fitzwilliam Hotel, not having been able to account satisfactorily for his being in possession of the horse. He was a hawker, and had given the address of No. 1, Richard-street, Hunslet. Leeds. — Mr. Sykes contended there was no ground for the charge, the evidence tending to show that there was no exposing for sale on the part of the defendant, who had unhesitatingly given his name and address. He had gone to the fair to buy a horse, and in making the purchase, as he had done, he was doing what was a perfectly legitimate transaction. There was no exposure for sale on the part of the buyer, who had in fact been imposed upon by another. He submitted that glanders was a " difficult disease to detect, and that it was incumbent on the prosecutor to show that there was a knowledge on the part of the defendant that it was a glardered horse. The defendant's licence as a hawker was put in. Evidence was then given for the defence to show that the purchase had been honestly entered into by the defendant, who had been seen to pay for the horse.— Thomas McLean, contractor, Hunslet, spoke to the respectability of the defendant, whom he had known for seven years. He kept a horse in his business. — The Bench, after due deliberation, decided that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant knew the horse was glandered. Considering the whole of the evidence, the charge had not been brought home and the defendant would therefore be discharged.
