41 



show of reason be contended that the question of necessity was to be determined 

 by regard merely to what was necessary for the animal itself. Where were they 

 to find justification for pain inflicted upon an animal ? By a reference, in his 

 opinion, to the objects for which cattle were given to mankind — cattle were given 

 to man for his use, amongst other uses that they might be fattened, trafficked in, 

 killed, and eaten. An}^ operation that adapted them for the purposes for which 

 they were placed at man's disposal was not cruelty within the statute, provided it 

 was performed under the honest and reasonable belief of its usefulness for those 

 purposes, and with reasonable care and skill, and not attended with such suffering 

 as men of ordinary humanity would consider disproportionate to the object sought 

 to be attained. In the case before Lord Coleridge and Mr Justice Hawkins, the 

 judges seemed much impressed with the fact that dishorning had been discon- 

 tinued throughout nearly the entire of England and Wales. Now, if it had been 

 found that the practice of dishorning had been discontinued in Ireland generally, 

 and was practised in onby one part, in one county, as was the case in England, he 

 would have had the greatest difficulty in affirming its legality; but it appeared 

 that the practice of dishorning had been carried on to a considerable extent in 

 Scotland, and was widely prevalent throughout Ireland. It was largely practised 

 in Meath, Louth, Dublin, Kildare, Monaghan, Westmeath, Queen's County, Carlo w, 

 Roscommon, Galway, and in other counties. The counties he had mentioned 

 \#ere the principal fattening districts of Ireland. The practice also appeared to 

 be daily extending. One of the witnesses stated it had increased all over Ireland 

 four or five times since the last decision, and that its suppression would cost the 

 country nearly half a million of money per annum. It appeared, also, that the 

 practice of dishorning conferred advantages on the owner of the cattle, on the 

 community at large, and on the cattle themselves — that dishorning of cattle 

 increased their market value, and that its suppression would cause the country 

 very serious loss Dishorned cattle throve and became quiet. They were mure 

 easily handled, less dangerous to man and to each other, and less liable to injury 

 when on pasture or in transit. Anyone who has seen anything of cross-channel 

 traffic -knew that cattle suffered grievously from the injury inflicted on each other 

 by goring. The advantages conferred by dishorning on the owners of cattle and 

 on the community did not seem to weigh at all with Lord Coleridge and Mr. 

 Justice Hawkins; but if this court were to dismiss those advantages altogether 

 from consideration they would be ignoring the objects for which cattle were given 

 to man. The advantages conferred by dishorning on the owner and on the com- 

 munity at large, as well as on the cattle themselves, must be taken into considera- 

 tion in determining the reasonableness and adequacy of the objects of those who 

 performed the operation, and, in his judgment, having regard to the evidence 

 given as to the character of the operation of the no doubt very great, but very 

 temporary, pain which attended it, and the motives and objects of those who got 

 it performed, and the results which followed from its performance, the magistrates 

 were justified in coming to the conclusion that the pain was not inflicted without 

 good reason. As to the nature of the suffering inflicted, he might refer to an 

 observation of Mr. Justice Murphy in Callaghan's case : — " In a case of this kind 

 self-interest would prevent any farmer from resorting to a practice of this nature 

 if the result were merely to cause useless pain and torture. Great pain and 

 suffering would necessarily reduce the condition of the animal, and unless they 

 were soon recovered the fanner would lose in sale. The Solicitor-General 

 contended that what was called disbudding was a less painful and more reason- 

 able method of dishorning, but that contention was challenged by witnesses for 

 the defence. Disbudding was not practised to any considerable extent, and 

 though, perhaps, less painful than dishorning, the question the court had now to 



