Article content continued

James Silver, one of Krajnc’s defence lawyers, said outside court that his team is arguing Krajnc was acting in the public good, and was therefore not breaking the law.

But the Crown argues that the pigs are the property of the farmer, and Krajnc was interfering with his property when she gave them water.

During cross examination, Krajnc denied she was “interfering” with someone else’s property, saying she’d rather use the word “intervening.”

Krajnc testified that she was “just following the golden rule” in feeding the pigs, treating them as she would want to be treated.

She said the pigs were foaming at the mouth, hot and thirsty on June 22, 2015.

But court heard on the first day of trial in August from the man driving the truck, Jeffrey Veldjesgraaf, that the pigs were not thirsty. He said he’d been working with pigs for all his life, so he knew what a thirsty pig looked like, and the pigs in his truck were fine.

On the day of the incident, Veldjesgraaf got out of his truck and argued with Krajnc who was dumping a liquid from a water bottle into the truck as it approached the Fearmans Pork slaughterhouse, he testified.

Krajnc told court that she had spent hundreds of hours “bearing witness” to animals as they were transported to slaughter, and was sometimes accompanied by police who kept a watchful eye.

She said that before her arrest, police had never told her it was illegal to feed the pigs.

She also testified that seeing a truck full of pigs is, to her, like seeing “a truck full of four-year-old children,” saying that pigs have the same level of intelligence as those kids.

The trial is to resume Nov. 1.