But Leroy Kenneth Sinclair Brangman won an application against Crown counsel Leighton Rochester to have the horse returned to him, with Magistrate Archibald Warner saying Care and Protection of Animals Act does not set out what is "suitable'' housing for a horse.

"The Act doesn't tell us what suitable means,'' Mr. Warner said after hearing some details of the case. "Like any law there must be an objective test. This is interesting.'' He added: "No evidence of what is standard and normal and is expected was given. I'm not a vet. But I can say the law demands adequate standards. It doesn't say you got to give him a condominium.'' Mr. Warner warned Brangman that although he had won the battle, he had still not won the war and he will be tried on March 30.

Brangman pleaded not guilty to keeping the horse without proper shelter, food and care at No. 2 Spice Hill Road, Warwick between September 3 and November 8.

It was when Brangman complained that on another occasion he had to pay for the care of the horse which had been confiscated, Mr. Warner ordered another hearing.

The hearing lasted for more than an hour, running into the lunch period of Magistrates' Court.

Suzanne Smith, who last year lost the chance to become Government's head veterinarian, presented evidence of her findings as assistant government vet.

But before he allowed Brangman to leave, Mr. Warner said: "You are still required to maintain the horse adequately.

"If you don't do that Mr. Brangman, you may find yourself before the courts again and have to go through all this again,'' he added. "Let me make this quite clear, this has no bearing on whether you are guilty. That's separate.''