31 



United States, 1886 — llinois Humane Society v. Haaf. Tried at Chicago ; case dismissed. 

 About the same time the Pennsylvania Sooietv for the i retention of Cruelty to Animals prose- 

 cuted a fanner named Horst. ■ he case was submitted to a j'iry, who dismissed the action, but 

 imposed one-half the cos*s on the defen hint an<l one-half on the Society. 'The last prosecution, 

 to date in the United states was decided June, 1892. The Wesiern Pennsylvania Humane 

 Society brought an action against a fanner near Pittsburg. The defence had a large numb r of 

 witnesses, many of whom tes ified that the cattle, wht-n dehorne I, would herd together like 

 sheep, never fighc, and put on flesh better ; also, that the pain of t e operation lasted only a 

 few moments. A verdict of acquittal was brought in by a jury. 



Canada, 1*90 — The Montreal S. P. C. A. brought an action against J. L. SheDard. a farmer 

 of A'>ercorn, Qiubac. The case w;n tried bjfore four Just ces of tlie Peace, wh > dismissed it 

 with costs against the Society on the evidence of 22 witnesses tha r tin operation was a beneficial 

 one ; the defendant, however, voluntarily paid hi- own costs. In the early part of the follow- 

 ing year W. V. Ni^h was prosecuted on the same charge at L<n Ion, » mtario. befoiv two 'ustiees 

 of the Peace, wh » dismissed the case without costs In January. 1S9 i, Willi nn Z >rk, Elvvu' I 

 York and W. \. El do it were prosecuted at London, Ont., before two Justices, convicted, and 

 fined $50 and costs each. 



First Irish Case. 



The first case of dehorning brought before the courts, of which a record is 



obtainable, was that of Brady V. McArgie in Ireland. 



The defendant, McArgie, was summoned at the instance of Thos. F. Brady, 

 Hon. Secretary of the .Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for 

 ' having caused the horns of certain ca'tle to lie cut off and otherwise ill-treated 

 them on the 25th of February, l«8f, at Greenan, in the county of Meath, Ireland." 



The case was heard before Mr. George McCar hy, R. M., sitting alone as 

 justice at a petty sessions held at Drunic onrath on the li)th of March, 18<S4«. 

 After hearing the evidence for and against of seven witnesses, the magistrate 

 declined to convict, on the gro:nds that in his opinion the act was not cruelty 

 within the f ir meaning of the statute, and that the custom of dehorning cattle 

 greatly prevailed among the farmers of the district to enable them to get a larger 

 price for their beasts. He accordingly dismissed tue case on the merits. 



At the request of counsel for the complainant, the magistrate agreed to state 



a case for the opinion of the Superior Court on the question of law whether the 



acts proved came within the statute, and the question for the consideration of the 



court was : 



Whether the magistrate was wrong in point of law in dismissing the case, or whether he 

 should have convicted upon the above facts '/ 



Exchequer Division. 



This case next came before the Exchequer Division, April 19, 188-t, the 



presiding judges being Baron Dowse and Mr. Justice Andrews. Both these 



justices concurred in the decision that the magistrate ought to have convicted, on 



the ground that the act was an offence within the meaning of the Act. 



His Lordship Baron Dowse pointed out that it was not contended that these 

 acts were done for the sake of the cattle. Alter dealing at some length with 

 the interpretation of the word "cruelty," he continued:—"! cannot hold that 

 what is here complained of better fits or makes the animal more serviceable 

 for the use of man. I think the acts were unreasonable and unnecessary, 

 and are consequently forbidden by law. The acts were done for convenience, 

 it is said. Convenience of whom? Of the mm who chooses to feed his 

 eattle in a narrow yard, or in a particular manner aud in a confined place. 



