30 



five years. Ifc is now a common practice in Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois and on 

 the large ranches and stock farms of the Western States, and the number of cattle 

 dehorned is said to he over one million. In Canada it has been carried on to a 

 limited extent during the past four years in the western part of this Province and 

 also in Quebec. 



VARIOUS LEGAL DECISIONS. 



Looking at the practice from a legal aspect, the Commissioners find that it 

 has been the subject of litigation from the year 1874 to the present time. The 

 first important case of which we have been able to find a record occurred in 

 Ireland in February, 1884, and since then, in Great Britain, six appeals from 

 magisterial decisions have been carried to the higher courts. The result has been 

 that the Irish and Scottish courts have affirmed the legality of the practice, while 

 in England Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Hawkins have con- 

 demned it as illegal and subject to serious penalties. 



The Law against Cruelty. 



The Dominion statute against cruelty to animals, under which prosecutions 

 were brought, reads as follows : 



"Eve'yone who wantonly, cruelly, or unnecessarily beats, binds, ill-treats, abuses, over- 

 drives, or tortures any cattle, poultry, dog, domestic animal or bird shall, upon summary 

 conviction b fore two justices of th peace, be liable to a .penalty not exceeding $50, or 

 imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months. 



In the English law it is enacted : 

 That "• if any person shall cruelly beat, ill-treat, over-'rive, abuse or torture, or cause or 

 procure to be cruelly beaten, ill treated, over-driven, abused or tortured any animal" such 

 offender shall be subject to such punishment as is prescribed by that statute. 



Summary of British Trials. 



The following brief note of the various cases will show at a glance how the 



matter stands : 



Ireland, 1884 — Brady v. McArgle. Magistrate refused to convict. Exchequer division 

 held that conviction should have been entered. (Baron Djwse and Mr. Justice Andrews,) 



Ireland, 1885— Callaghan and McEvoy v. the S P. C. A. Three magistrates at the petty 

 sessions held that they were bound to convict in accord mce with the above decision. Commou 

 pleas division of the High ' ourt of Justice overruled this, and held that the operation, skihuily 

 perf 'rined, did not come within the meaning of the Act. (Chief Justice Morris, Mr. Justice 

 Harrison and Mr. Justice Murphy.) 



Scotland, 18SS - Penton v. Wilson. Acquitted by the sheriff-substitute. C se appealed to 

 a higher court, and the sheriff-substitute sustained. (Lords Young. McLaren and ItuJierford 

 Clark.) 



England, 1K88 — Ford v. Wiley. Admitted by a board of five magistrates. Higher court 

 held that conviction should have been entered. (Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice 

 Hawkins.,) 



Sctland. 1891 — Penton v. Wilson. Appealed to a higher court, and the two previous 

 decisions unanimously confirmed. (The Lord Justice Clark, Lords McLaren, Irayner, Well- 

 wood and Kyllachy.) 



Ireland, 1891 — Newland v. McDonagh. Two magistrates refused to convict. Higher 

 court sustained this decision. (The Lord hief Justice, Mr. Justice O'Brien, Mr. Justice 

 .lohnson, Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Jusiice Gibson.) 



