The case was dismissed, the following being the decision of the justices :— 



We were of opinion that the appellant had proved that the dishorning of the cattle in these 

 cases had caused considerable pain and suffering to the animals. 



We were satisfied that the respondent had exercised ordinary care in the performance of 

 the operation. 



We considered it as proved that the practice of dehorning cattle had been carried on in a 

 part of the county of Norfolk to a considerable extent during tne past three or four years. 



Also that the results attained by dehorning could not be obtained by merely tipping the 

 horns as suggested by some of the witnesses called by the appellant. 



We do not believe that the respondent had any cruel intention in performing the operation 

 but that he acted under the honest belief that it was for the benefit of the animals themselves, 

 and as well for the benefit of himself as a grazier, and that the object he had in view could 

 not be attained by any other known method. 



We accordingly dismiss the information laid against him, without costs. 



We were of opinion that upon the evidence adduced by the appellant it is advisable in 

 dehorning cattle that the operation should be performed at an early age. 



The magistrates, at the request of the Royal Society for the Prevention of 

 Cruelty to Animals, stated a case for the opinion of the judges of the High Court 

 of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, on the following question :— 



" Is the operation of dehorning cattle as proved to have been performed in this case justi- 

 fiable having regard to section 2 of 12 and 13 Vict. eap. 92 ? " 



Before the High Court. 



The case then came before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice 

 Hawkins on April 12, 1889. Mr. Lumley Smith, Q.C., argued the case for the 

 appellant, and Mr. Winch, Q.C., for the respondent. The rights of man over the 

 dumb creation were discussed at length, and their Lordships gave judgment revers- 

 ing the decision of the magistrates, and holding distinctly that the practice of 

 dehorning was unlawful. In arriving at this conclusion they attached great 

 importance to the expert testimony given by Prof. Walley and other veteri- 

 narians, and held that the suffering inflicted was out of all proportion to the 

 commercial considerations of the operation. Lord Coleridge denounced the 

 practice as detestably brutal. In giving a definition of the term " cruelty " he 

 says : " The mere infliction of pain is not cruelty, for in medicine and surgery it is 

 necessary and lawful to inflict pain. Necessary pain is limited to what may 

 fairly be inflicted on animals in order to enable them to attain their due degree 

 of development or become fitted for ordinary use." Cruelty he defined to be 

 unnecessary abuse or unnecessary ill-usage by which the animal substantially 

 suffers. Dehorning he considered unnecessary. For twenty years or more the 

 practice had been entirely disused throughout England and Wales, and it had 

 not been thought necessary to perform it on any of the millions of cattle which 

 the farmers of England had reared and sold to be eaten. Necessity, to constitute 

 an excuse under the Act, did not simply mean that the object of the operation 

 could not be otherwise secured. There must be some proportion between the 

 object and the means. To put thousands of cows or oxen to the hideous tortures 

 described in the evidence in order to put a few pounds more into the pockets of 

 the owners was an instance of utter disproportion between the result and the 

 practice described — was barbarous and unlawful. 



Mr. Justice Hawkins said that while he should have been quite content to 

 express cordial concurrence in the judgment of the Chief Justice the importance 

 of the question to a large community led him to express his own independent 

 views as to it. To support a conviction it must be proved that the pain or 

 suffering had been inflicted in fact, and that it was inflicted cruelly. That the 

 operation of dehorning as described in this case was accompanied by excruciating 

 torture was beyond all question, and anyone who could willingly inflict such 



