cruelty

The cruelty against which the Constitution protects a convicted man is cruelty inherent in the method of punishment, not the necessary suffering involved in any method employed to extinguish life humanely.

As between husband and Wife. takes place where a party bound to provide for and protect them either abuses them by whipping them unnecessarily, or by neglecting to provide for them those neces which their helpless condition requires, posing a person of tender years, under one's care, to the inclemency of the weather; - Campb. 650; keeping each a child, unal.le to provide for himself, without adequate food; 1 Leach 137; Russ. & R. 20; or an neglecting to provide food and medical care to a pauper having argent and Immediate occasion for them; Rosa & R- 46; are examples of this species of cruelty. In many of the principal cities, beginning with New York, in April 1875, SOCleti< the prevention of cruelty to children have been formed, authorized to prosecute persons who maltreat children, or force them to pursue improper and dangerous employments '• N. Y. Act of April 21, 1875; Delafield on Children, 1876. Stat. 42 & 43 Vict. c. 34 regulates certain employments for children. By the act of Congress of February 13, 1SS5, the association for the prevention of cruelty to animals for the District of Columbia, was authorized to extend its operation, under the name of the Washington Humane Society, to the protection of children as well as animals from cruelty and abuse, and the agents of the society have power to prefer complaints for the violation of any law relating to or affecting the protection of children. They may also bring before the court any child who is subjected to cruel treatment, abuse or neglect, or any child under sixteen years of age found in a house of illfame, and the court may commit such child to an orphan asylum or other public charitable institution, and any person wilfully or cruelly maltreating, or wrongfully employing such child, is liable to punishment 23 Stat. L. 302. Cruelty to animals is an indictable offence. A defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor for tying the tongue of a calf so near the root as to prevent its sucking, in order to sell the cow at a greater price, by giving to her udder the appearance of being full of milk while affording the calf all it needed;.Morris & Clark's Cases, 6 City H. Rec. (N. Y.) 62. A man may be indicted for cruelly beating his horse; U. S. v. Jackson, 4 Cra. C. C. 483, Fed. Cas. No. 15,4r>:'.; 9 L. T. R. (N. S.) 175; Com. v. Lufkin, 7 Allen (Mass.) 579; 3 B. & S. 382; State v. Avery, 44 N. H. 392; Collier v. State, 4 Tex. App. 12: Ueeker v. State, 4 Tex. App. 234; State v. Bogardus, 4 Mo. App. 215; State v. Haley, 52 Mo. App. 520; Swartzbangh v. People, 85 111. 457; Com. v. Curry, 150 Mass. 509, 23 N. E. 212; See Com. v. Mc Clellan, 101 Mass. 34; State v. Porter, 112 N. C. 8S7, 16 S. B. 915; Tinsley v. State (Tex.) 22 S. W. 39; or for cruel Under 12 and 13 Vict. c. 92, § 2, dishorning cattle is not an offence where the operation is skilfully performed; 16 Cox, Cr. Cas. 101. This practice is allowed in Pennsylvania; Act Pa. 1895, June 25, P. L. 286. In Massachusetts it was held that a fox is an animal in the sense of the statute, and a person letting loose a captive fox to be subjected to unnecessary suffering (for the purpose of being hunted by dogs) was liable to punishment; Com. v. Turner, 145 Mass. 296, 14 N. E. 130. Malice toward the owner is not an ingredient of the offense created by a statute providing for the punishment of every person who shall wilfully and maliciously maim the horse of another; People v. Tessmer, 171 Mich. 522, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 433, 137 N. W. 214.

The intentional and malicious infliction of physical suffering upon living creatures, particularly human bsings; or, as applied to the latter, the wanton, malicious, and unnecessary infliction of pain upon the body or the feelings and emotions; abusive treatment; inhumanity; outrage. Chiefly used in the law of divorce, in such phrases as "cruel and abusive treatment," "cruel and barbarous trcatment," or "cruel and inhuman treatment," as to the meaning of which, and of "cruelty" in this sense, see May v. May, 62 Pa. 206; Waldron v. Waldron, 85 Cal. 251, 24 Pac. 649, 9 L. R. A. 487; Ring v. Ring, 118 Ga. 183, 44 S. E. 861, 62 L. R. A. 878; Sharp v. Sharp, 16 III. App. 348; Myrick v. Myrlck, 67 Ga. 771; Shell v. Shell, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 716; Vignos v. Vignos, 15 III. 186; Poor v. Poor, 8 N. H. 307, 29 Am. Dec. 664; Goodrich v. Goodrich, 44 Ala. 670; Bailey v. Bailey, 97 Mass. 373; Close v. Close, 25 N. J. Eq. 526; Cole v. Cole, 23 Iowa, 433; Turner v. Turner, 122 Iowa, 113, 97 N. W. 997; Levin v. Levin, 68 S. C. 123, 46 S. E. 945. As between husband and wife. Those acts which affect the life, the health, or even the comfort, of the party aggrieved and give a reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt, are called "cruelty." What merely wounds the feelings is seldom admitted to be cruelty, unless the act be accompanied with bodily injury, either actual or menaced. Mere austerity of temper, pefulance of manners, rudeness of language, a want of civil attention and accommodation, even occasional sallies of passion, will not amount to legal cruelty; a fortiori, the denial of little indulgences and particular accommodations, which the delicacy of the world is apt to number among its necessaries, is not cruelty. The negative descriptions of cruelty are perhaps the best, under the infinite variety of cases that may occur, by showing what is not cruelty. Evans v. Evans, A. Hagg. Const. 35; Westmeath v. Westmeath, 4 Eng. Ece. 238, 311. 312. Cruelty includes both willfulness and malicious temper of mind with which an act is done, as well as a high degree of pain inflicted. Acts merely accidental, though they inflict great pain, are not "cruel," in the sense of the word as used in stafutes against cruelty. Comm. v. McClellan, 101 Mass. 34.

— Cruelty to animals. The infliction of physical pain, suffering, or death upon an animal, when not necessary for purposes of training or discipline or (m the case of death) to procure food or to release the animal from incurable suffering, but done wantonly, for mere sport, for the indulgence of a cruel and vindictive temper, or with reckless indifference to its pain. Com. v. Lufkin, 7 Allen (Mass.) 581; State v. Avery, 44 N. H. 392 ; Paine v. Bergli, 1 City CL It. (N. Y.) 160; State v. Porter, 112 N. C. 887, 16 S. E. 915, State v. Bos-worth, 54 Conn. 1, 4 Atl. 248; McKinne v. State, 81 Ga. 164, 9 S. E. 1091; Waters v. People, 23 Colo. 33, 46 Pac. 112, 33 L R. A. 836, 58 Am. St. Rep. 215.

— Legal cruelty. Such as will warrant the granting of a divorce to the injured party; as distinguished from such kinds or degrees of cruelty as do not,' under the statutes and decisions, amount to sufficient cause for a decree. Legal cruelty may be defined to be such conduct on the part of the husband as will endanger the life, limb, or health of the wife, or create a reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt; such acts as render cohabitation unsafe, or are likely to be attended with injury to the person or to the health of the wife. Odom v. Odom, 36 Ga. 286.

— Cruel and unusual punishment. See Punishment.

The intentional and malicions iniliction of physical suffering upon living creatures, particularly human beings; or, a8 applied to the latter, the wanton, malielous, and unnecessary infliction of pain upon the body, or the feelings and emotions; abujive treatment; inhumanity; outrage. Extreme cruelty is the iniliction of grievous bodily injury or grievous mental suffering upon the other by one party to the marriage. Civil Code Cal. § 94, As between husband and wife. Those acts which affect the life, the health, or even the comfort, of the party aggrieved, and give a reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt, are called “cruelty.” What merely wounds the feelings is seldom admitted to be cruelty, unless the act be accompanied with bodily injury, either actual or menaced. Mere austerity of temper, petulance of manners, rudeness of language, a want of civil attention and ac commodation, even occasional sallies of passion, will not amount tolegal cruelty; a fortiori, the denial of little indulgeuces and particular accommodations, which the delicacy of the world is apt to number among its necessarics, is notcrueity. The negative descriptions of cruelty are perhaps the best, under the infinite variety of cases that may occur, by showing what is not cruelty. 1 Hagg. Cruelty Includes both willfulness and malicious temper of mind with which an act is done, as well asa high degree of paininflicted. Acts merely accidental, though they inflict great pain, are uot “cruel,” in the sense of the word as used in stat utes aguinst cruelty, 101 Mass. 34,

This word has F ifferent meanings as it is applied to diferent things. Between ‘hocba and wife those acts which affect the life, the health or even the comfort of the party aggrieved, and give a reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt, are called cruelty. What merely wounds the feelings is seldom admitted to be cruelty, unless the act be accompanied with bodily injury, either actual or menaced. Mere austerity of temper, petulance of manners, rudeness of language, a want of civil attention and accommodation, even occasional sallies of passion, will not amount to legal cruelty; a fortiori the denial of little indulgences and particular accommodations, which the delicacy of the world is apt to number among its necessaries, is not cruelty. These negative descriptions of cruelty are perhaps the best, under the infinite variety of cases that may occur, by showing what is not cruelty. 1 Hagg. R. 35; 8. C. 4 Eccles. Rep. 461, 489; Poynt. on Mar. & Div. c. 15, p. 208. Cruelty towards weak and helpless persons takes place where a party bound to provide and protect them either abuses them by whipping them unnecessarily, or by neglecting to provide for them those necessaries which their helpless condition requires. To expose a person of tender years, under a party’s care to the inclemency of the weather, 2 Campb. 650; or to keep such a child, of inability.to provide for himself, without adequate food, 1 Leach, 137; Russ. & Ry. 20; or for an overseer neglecting to provide food and medical care to a pauper having urgent and immediate occasion for them, Russ. & Ry. 46, 47, 48, are examples of this species of cruelty. By the civil code of Louisiana, art. 192, it is enacted, that when the master shall be convicted of cruel treatment of his slave, the judge may pronounce, besides the penalty established for such cases, that the slave shall be sold at public auction, in order to place him out of the reach of the power which his master has abused. Cruelty to animals is an indictable offence. A defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor for tying the tongue of a calfso near the root, as to prevent its sucking, im order to sell the cow at greater price, by giving to her udder the appearance of being full of milk, while affording her calf all he needed. 6 Rogers, City Hall Rec. 62. A man may be indicted for cruelly beating his horse. 3 Rogers, City H. Rec. 191.