Dehorning. 133 



the action of animals particularly before and after the operation. The 

 Grand Jury, prompted by a desire to go to the bottom of the matter, 

 snbpujnaed about thirty of the representative farmers of the county 

 who were large cattle breeders and who had observed extensively the 

 effect of dehorning upon their own and other cattle. Without excep- 

 tion these witnesses testified that they believed dehorning to be highly 

 beneficial and in the interest of humanity. Several of the Grand Jurors 

 had themselves had experience with dehorning, and these, including the 

 foreman, were excused from all consideration of the matter and excluded 

 from the jury room during the entire examination, that no claim could be 

 made but that the case was fairly considered. After all the testimony 

 had been put in, the ballot was taken and not a single vote was given 

 for the indictment. 



It will thus be seen that the Grand Juries of two counties of the 

 State, after full and careful testimony, have decided, by refusing indict- 

 ments, that the removing of the horns from an animal does not consti- 

 tute " crueltv " under the statute. 



Prosecutions in Other States. 



As has already been said, H. H, Haaf of Illinois, was one of the first 

 to publicly advocate and largely practice dehorning. He was likewise 

 one of the first to be prosecuted therefor. On complaint of the Illinois 

 Humane Society, Haaf was arrested for practicing cruelty to animals in 

 having removed the horns from a certain heifer. He was tried before 

 Justice Steele at Geneseo, 111., on January 22, 1886. A large number 

 of witnesses were examined on both sides and a verdict of acquittal was 

 rendered Mr. Haaf. 



At least two prosecutions have taken place in Pennsylvania, one in 

 1886, in which the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty 

 to Animals prosecuted a farmer named Hirst. The case was submitted 

 to a jury, who dismissed the action but imposed one-half the costs on 

 the defendant and one-half on the Society. The other in 1892, in which 

 the Western Pennsylvania Humane Society brought an action against 

 a farmer near Pittsburg. A large number of witnesses were examined 

 and a verdict of acquittal was brought in by the jury. 



The Case in Canada. 



By far the most thorough examination of thfe legal aspects of dehorn- 

 ing in its relation to cruelty to animals has been made in Canada and 

 published in 1892, in the Report of the Ontario Commission on the 

 Dehorning of Cattle. From this report we quote as follows: 



