IS 



opinion be considered unnecessary, for the object is reasonable and adequate. 



. . In cases like the present where there is no appeal, this court though 

 entertaining every respect for the decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, 

 cannot follow it in a case dealing with such important interests as the present! 

 and which in my opinion very clearly should be decided with the appellants. 

 . . . The prosecution by a society like the prosecutors should in my judgment 

 be carefully, perhaps jealously watched. Most laudable in its inception and 

 objects, it has a tendency to fall into the hands of over-active officials, or to be 

 urged on by individuals seeking to impose an undue extension of a general act 

 their own idiosynacrasies on society. The vivisection Act is important as showing 

 that legislation was necessary to restrain within certain limits painful expert 

 ments. If the opponents of dehorning cattle desire to check or restrain its oper- 

 ations in a similar way they must resort to legislation. 



Mr. Justice Harrison said that it appeared from the evidence that the prac- 

 tice had commenced about twenty years ago and was prevalent in many parts of 

 Ireland. He was of the opinion after considering the conclusions arrived at by 

 the magistrates and reading over the evidence, that the practice was a reasonable 

 one, and necessary for the proper carrying on of the system of straw yard winter 

 feeding, largely and profitably practiced in many parts of Ireland. He was fur- 

 ther of the opinion that the fact that the operation was attended with pain was 

 not sufficient to constitute it a cruel or criminal act within the meaning of the 

 statute. Regard must be had to the use to be made of cattle. One of such uses 

 was for food for human beings, and if this practice was advantageous in making- 

 cattle thrive better in store feeding and be more safely conveyed in transit it 

 could not be held to be an act within the statute being done to make the animal 

 more serviceable for the use of man. 



Mr. Justice Murphy held that in a case of this kind self-interest would pre- 

 vent any farmer from resorting to a practice, where the result was merely to 

 cause useless pain or torture to the animals. Great pain and suffering would, 

 necessarily reduce the condition of the animal, and unless they very soon 

 recovered the farmer would lose in the sale. The defendants had produced evi- 

 dence to show that the pain caused by the operation was very brief ; that the 

 animal feeds very soon after the operation ; that it throve better than animals 

 from which the horns were not removed ; that in transportation dehorned animals 

 suffer less, the cattle with horns being liable to suffer from being gored one by 

 the other ; and that in the English markets to which they resort for sale the 

 animals dehorned bring £2 per head more than animals of the same weight and 

 quality would with horns on . . . The purpose for which the act was done 

 was to make the animal more serviceable for the use of man, and therefore the 

 statute did not apply, and the court had no more right to interfere with farmers 

 in the performance of this operation than they had to prevent them from cutting 

 their horses. The operation in either case might be performed so unskilfully or 

 recklessly that unnecessary pain might be caused and the act would then be 

 cruel and within the statute, but if performed with ordinary skill and care it 

 was perfectly legal. 



In the Scottish Courts. 



In Scotland in the case of Renton v. Wilson three decisions were given by 

 different courts, all affirming the legality of the practice. Additional im- 

 portance attaches to this from the fact that the last decision— that of the 

 Scottish Court of Appeal — was given subsequent to the English finding of 

 illegality. 



3 (D.C.) 



