My master’s thesis is linked to the new trend in social and human sciences for the past few decades, that has been called the animal turn. It focuses on the relationship between humans and animals. I have researched animal abuse cases in Central Finland in 1890’s. My main source is the court records from the jurisdictional district of Viitasaari 1890–1900. My research questions are: what were the consequences of the animal abuse article of the 1889 legal code in practice, how animal abuse was defined, and whether there was a top-down social control in these cases. In addition, I ascertain the status of different animals in agrarian society. I also explore the attitudes, actions and ideology of the local society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. For background, I have examined the prevention of cruelty to animal acts and their development in England, the United States, Sweden and the Grand Duchy of Finland. In addition I observe the connections between top-down social control and the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals. In the 1890’s there was society for the prevention of cruelty to animals in Central Finland: Jyväskylän eläinsuojelusyhdistys. It was founded in 1878 and located in Jyväskylä. Their operations were limited to the city and surrounding areas. Their activity had great variance, and in the middle of the decade the organization was not functioning at all. The society’s members were of the local financial and political elite. It focused mainly on confiscating run-down horses at the city market and spreading guidance to educate about animal abuse. From their phrasings it can be seen that the operation was mainly aimed at the commoners from the countryside. The transition in to the new animal abuse act of the legal code did not have an impact to the number of animal abuse cases or in the harshness of the convictions. The verdicts were more linked to the details of individual cases. The animal abuse cases were mostly about horses: they were an expensive status animal and their uses were highly visible. In addition, the animal cruelty prevention societies in small cities were focused on horses and the training and attending of horses were considered to be masculine responsibilities. In the agrarian society it was thought that there was a “contract” between humans and farm animals. The animals needed to be obedient and hard-working and the human’s obligation was to take care of the animal. In Central Finland during the 1890’s animal abuse could be defined as the lack of good care, which was considered as having food to eat, water to drink, a shelter and enough rest. Using physical punishments was commonly accepted, but not when it went too far. Using an injured or sick animal for work or demanding insurmountable work efforts especially by force were thought of as animal abuse. The definition of animal cruelty varied among individuals. Based on my source material there was not, at least visible, social control in the animal abuse court cases. I state that treating animals well was not only dependent on the era, wealth or social status. In the court cases I examined, cruelty as well as empathy towards animals was shown by maidservants, farmhands, merchants and wealthy farmers alike.