36 



professional men engaged in performing this operation of dehorning, and this 

 prosecution was against a professional man who had been employed by the owner 

 of cattle to dehoi n them. He was of opinion that this was not a case of cruelty 

 within the meaning of the Act, and to come to this conclusion he required no 

 authority from decisions in similar cases. The Act would certainly apply to 

 wanton and malicious cruelty where the object was to cause suffering to the 

 animal, but there were many acts which had a certain amount of cruelty associated 

 with them and which had been referred to in the course of the argument — 

 castrating horses, spaying of sows and preparing of capons — which did not, 

 however, amount to cruelty within the meaning of the act, though there were 

 many people, no doubt who considered these to be very cruel operations under 

 all circumstances. In conclusion he said:— "The statute does not pretend to 

 interfere with human life to such an extent, or with the judgment of those who 

 are pursuing their own affairs intelligently and to the best of their judgment, 

 as the farmers in Fifeshire have been doing, although in the opinion of others 

 more numerous than themselves they may be mistaken. I am therefore of 

 opinion that this appeal ought to be dismissed." 



Lord McLaren and Lord Rutherford Olark both concurred in this decision. 



The English Case. 



The next trial in chronological order was in England, that of Ford v. Wiley, 

 sometimes called " the Norfolk case." At the Blofield petty sessions, on Nov. 26, 

 1888, J. C. Wiley, a Norfolk farmer, was summoned at the instance of the Royal 

 Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to A.nimals for having unlawfully and cruelly 

 tortured 32 bullocks by dehorning them. Mr. Wiley admitted having performed 

 the operation and afforded every facility to the officers of the society for ascer- 

 taining how it had been done and in what state the animals operated upon had 

 been left. The case was heard by a board of five magistrates. For the prosecu- 

 tion evidence was given by the informant and thirteen distinguished professors 

 and members of the veterinary profession, while fifteen farmers testified in favor 

 of the practice. The pain of the operation was placed in a very strong light by 

 the professional men, the anatomy of the horn being fully described. Prof. 

 Walley, of the Royal Dick's Veterinary College, Edinburgh, was examined at 

 greatest length and in the course of his evidence said : " Every tooth of the saw 

 as it tears through this structure causes excruciating pain, and the inflammation 

 following the operation produces great and prolonged suffering." "It is like cutting 

 through the quick of your finger." This evidence was concurred in by other 

 veterinary experts, and could not fail to carry great weight. 



For the defence, however, Mr. Gidney pointed out that the learned professors 

 were obliged to admit that they had no experience in dehorning beyond surgical 

 operations, while he could show by the evidence of practical men that the 

 operation prevented the cattle from suffering a great deal of injury, and that 

 from a humane point of view it was desirable that it should be performed in the 

 interests of the animals. The suffering and pain which they inflicted upon each 

 other was far greater, he contended, than that which they underwent by the 

 operation of dehorning. Witnesses for the defence, all practical farmers, then 

 testified that dehorning, in addition to increasing the value was beneficial to 

 the animals themselves, as it prevented injuries from goring ; that they had 

 tried tipping and knobbing the horns without success, and that while suffering 

 was caused by the operation it was not so great as they had previously imagined, 

 and was not in their opinion out of proportion to the benefits secured. 



