NEWS &VIEWSSweeny & Dorsey Case, continued from page 95


general disrepair of the property. But her credibility was undone when Wright easily established that there was something of a personal and ongoing feud between Umblant and Dorsey, with Facebook wars and requests for peace orders. T e tension and disdain between the two young women was clearly visible to all courtroom observers, even though each of them gamely attempted to suppress their emotions. However, Wright was not able to dismantle the credulity of the other county witnesses quite as easily, although he was given plenty of opportunities by the County Attorney, who naively kept pressing certain points such as pressing the point that the horses did not have free and open access to grain feed, as required by Animal Control. Undoubtedly, the County Attorney was referring to Animal Control requiring unfettered access to forage or hay, not feed. Sweeney attempted to explain that no horse person in his right mind allows horses and ponies unlimited access to grain or sweet feed. Rather than having Sweeney


Built t


defend himself, the attorney could have called on a nutrition expert or even asked one of the county’s witnesses (such as the vets) to establish that horses should not have unfettered access to grain. Despite the County Attorney’s misguided questioning,


the


crucial point was whether or not the horses were receiving adequate and nutritious feed. T e county’s evidence that they were not receiving adequate nutrition (feed) was that one horse out of nine had a critically low Henneke body conditioning score (Hope scored a 1.5, emaciated, at the time of impoundment) and two were in the “very thin” range of 3 and 3.5. T e remaining horses and ponies were in the acceptable ranges of 4 to 6. T e county did not provide context for the body scoring (i.e., the acceptable range), but the plaintiff s’ attorney, Wright, did establish that the majority of horses were in the acceptable range and that, in fact, a score of 7 is the beginning of carrying too much weight. Sweeney and Dorsey argued


Built to Last a L fetimeime st a Lifeti


that they knew they were having trouble keeping weight on Hope and that the two other horses were diffi cult keepers. T ey maintained that they were working with a vet on a program to try to rehabilitate the horses and put weight on them. However, the plaintiff s presented no feed store receipts as evidence that they had been acquiring and presumably feeding the diet they claimed. T ere was no one to testify as to the acquisition of the feed. And although they claimed that they were working with a vet on a feeding regime, and that the vet had prescribed a fi ve-day Panacur “power pack,” those prescription records were never entered into evidence. As a witness for the county,


although Forfa testifi ed that one horse was emaciated, two were underweight and the remainder were carrying acceptable weight, he also testifi ed that most of the horses had worms, some needed their teeth fl oated (these were the horses not on the property in January when Animal Control oversaw the dental work), many had lice and all needed farrier work, ranging from merely overdue to critical. When asked directly if all the horses were neglected, Forfa answered pointedly,


“Yes, these


horses were neglected. I fi nd it deplorable that when all the horses in this area (of the country) have access to the best vets, farriers and feed companies, that anyone would neglect routine care.” T e only witness presented


Our skilled Pennsylvania craftsmen bring true quality and pride in their workmanship to every project we build. Our #1 goal is to bring you the best value for every dollar you spend and ensure you are truly delighted when the job is complete.


From concept to completion we’ll work with you every step of the way. We are horse owners just like you, so we know what it takes to build a safe and effi cient facility to suit your needs or riding discipline.


Barns & arenas are our specialty – call for your free quote or to make an appointment to visit our model facility located just outside Upperville, VA. Come see our work fi rst hand and let us show you how we can make your dream barn a reality.


Contact: Karen Friedel 703-220-0561


kzazicki@earthlink.net 96 | THE EQUIERY | SEPTEMBER 2013


by the plaintiff s to counter the county’s claims of neglect was trainer/farrier William T. “Butch” Gardner. Gardner testifi ed that he used to service Severn but “not in a while.” When asked by the plaintiff s’ attorney, Wright, to assess the feet of horses and ponies as they appeared in the entrance photos taken at Days End, as well as the photos after their feet had been done, Gardner stated that this was a “battle of expert farrier opinions,” and that the farrier for Days End had a diff erent style than he did. Gardner provided very narrow and careful answers to each attorney: the feet were not grossly neglected; yes, they were in need of being done; one horse was very overdue, but the prior work was holding up and the feet were not chipped or broken up. Wright was not able to get Gardner to


say that the feet were fi ne, but the county’s attorney was not able to get Gardner to say the feet were grossly overgrown, just that one was “very overdue”. Wright, the plaintiff s’ attorney, using the various photos, also had Gardner testify that, in his opinion and based on the photos, except for Hope, the horses did not look underfed. Regarding Hope, although he thought the horse looked like she had not been fed properly, based on the photos, he thought that Hope’s coat looked good and so that it was perhaps not a chronic condition. Had the plaintiff s been able


to provide evidence that they had been regularly purchasing adequate amounts of feed since January and had been working with a vet, they would have had a more credible case. And if, as they claimed, the plaintiff s were having the horses feet done, and that they were just a “little” overdue, why did the plaintiff s not present as a witness their current farrier? Why present a farrier who no longer serviced the stable? In the end, the plaintiff s allowed that there had been some neglect as well as deterioration of the farm, noting that Sweeney had been struggling with depression since the death of his father but nevertheless had worked willingly with Animal Control to rectify problems, and that the majority of horses impounded, according to witnesses and evidence submitted by the county, were not in immediate life-threatening condition, and those particular animals should be returned.


The Verdict


On Wednesday, July 31, after listening to closing arguments, Judge Johnson ruled that the plaintiff s had failed to meet their burden of proof that they could properly care for the impounded ponies and horses in a manner that complied with Maryland’s legal requirements for the minimum standards of care. Sweeney and Dorsey have 30


days to appeal the judge’s decision. If the plaintiff s do not appeal, the county will assume ownership of the horses and will be able to release custody to Days End Farm Horse Rescue in order for the horses to be adopted out in the future.


800-244-9580 | www.equiery.com


874553-130713


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112