Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/122

 Rh NOTES. A Chinaman thus describes a trial in our Courts : " One man is silent, another talks all the time, and twelve wise men condemn the man who has not said a word."

101

facie case was made out in Mr. Littman's favor by evidence that he was a qualified and certifi cated "slaughterer" of long standing. Under these circumstances he was clearly entitled to have the charge against him dismissed as " not proven," if the magistrate did not feel able to A curious and interesting case has recently acquit him altogether. On the second issue, been decided at the Aberdeen Police Court whether slaughtering according to the Jewish under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ritual was in itself legal " cruelty," no direct de cision seems to have been given, unless we may (Scotland) Act, 1850, which has already ac quired a somewhat equivocal reputation south of infer that the magistrate was prepared to answer the Tweed. The Rev. James Littman, Rabbi of this question in the negative from the acquittal the Jewish Synagogue, in Aberdeen, and Mr. of Mr. Zamek as " not guilty " and the dismissal of the charge against Mr. Littman as " not Alexander Zamek, a member of the same persua sion, were charged with having slaughtered a proven," for if the Jewish method of slaughtering bullock with unnecessary cruelty in contravention cattle was per se an offence against the statute, of the Scotch statute. The public are already the proved, and indeed admitted fact that Mr. sufficiently familiar with the ordinary modus Littman had used it and Mr. Zame"k had been operandi in slaughter, however, to render any present consenting to its use, would, we should have imagined, have rendered them both liable description of it here superfluous; and it will be enough to say that the Jewish method differs to conviction. If this was the magistrate's view, from it chiefly in this respect : that the Christian we think that on the evidence, and in the present state of the law, it was the right one. There can process of stunning the animal about to be killed be no doubt that the ordinary process of stunning before the actual killing takes place, is in the cattle is not always accomplished by a single or Jewish practice dispensed with. The questions even a double blow; and the long training raised by the present case were in substance two; through which it was proved that Jewish Rabbis viz., whether Mr. Littman (for Mr. Zamek seems pass as a preparation for the work of slaughtering to have taken no active part in the- proceedings) creates a strong presumption that they will per had slaughtered the bullock in such an unskilful manner as to bring himself within the danger of form their sacrificial duties with skill and humanity alike. The solicitor for the accused, however, the law, and whether, even if he had not done so, appears to have contended that " wanton the mere act of slaughtering in the Jewish fashion cruelty" alone will justify a conviction under amounted to cruelty under the statute. On the the Scotch law. The Prevention of Cruelty to first of these issues, the presiding magistrate Animals (Scotland) Act has already received pronounced that judgment of "not proven" by which the law of Scotland (in our opinion with such startling interpretation m the "dishorning" and " cock fighting" cases, that we hesitate to very questionable propriety) at once gives an pronounce any decided opinion as to what pos accused person " the benefit of the doubt " and sibilities of extraordinary construction may yet relieves the Scotch courts from the obligation of be involved in it. But when any infliction of declaring a person, of whose innocence they are pain which was unnecessary was ipso facto held to not assured, " not guilty." The evidence on the be ' wanton,' we should regret extremely to find personal charges against Mr. Littman was, of of course, conflicting. On the one hand it was the doctrine apparently contended for in this case receiving judicial sanction. The fact, how alleged by the witnesses for the prosecution that there was an undue delay in the performance of ever, that this point has been seriously raised in the operation, that the ropes with which the the Aberdeen case may perhaps have the bene bullock was strapped down were unsuitable for ficial result of directing the attention of the British Legislature to the need for the passing of the purpose, ahd that the animal was " an un a Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for the conscionable time in dying." On the other whole Kingdom in order that the legal meaning hand, these allegations were positively denied by of " cruelty " may not depend upon latitude. the witnesses for the defence, and a strong />r//«a