The Legal Definition of Animal Abuse
A jury acquits a man who killed a 'balky' horse, raising questions about the threshold for animal cruelty in the 1890s.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The jury trying the case against Isaac Saunders for cruelty to animals in killing a balky horse he was driving, by striking it on the head with a club, took only a few minutes to acquit the defendant. Saunders was driving a spring wagon loaded with flowers, and one of the horses became obstreperous and refused to go any farther. When urged with a whip, the horse started to kick the wagon. Saunders jumped out, picked up a club, and commenced to beat the animal, eventually striking it on the head. The horse fell down and died. Judge Humes instructed the jury that if Saunders struck the animal with the intention of bringing it into subjection and controlling it—and not out of wanton, cruel, or vindictive punishment—they should acquit him. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.
“If Saunders struck the animal with the intention of bringing it into subjection and making it governable... they should acquit him.”
This case highlights the stark shift in legal and cultural standards regarding animal welfare. The justification that physical violence is acceptable if it serves to 'control' property reflects a Victorian attitude that modern animal cruelty laws have worked hard to dismantle, though arguments about human 'control' over animals still echo in current debates.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.