11 



The Trial Resumed. 



On the following day, February 3rd, the case was resumed at London, and 

 Mr. Cameron, for the defence, stated that they did not intend to offer any 

 further evidence before the magistrates, but simply have witnesses sign their 

 depositions. 



The case was then adjourned for judgment until February 8th, and on that 

 day the magistrates gave the following decision : 



First— We find the horns referred to in the information were cut off by W. A.. Elliott, 

 assisted by Edward York, ordered and permitted by William York, the owner. 



Second— Said horns were cut off close to the head, thus cruelly torturing the cows of 

 William York ; and no precautions were taken to lessen the pain of the operation, or to protect 

 the cows afterwards from the consequences of said cruelty. 



Third— It does not appear to us from the evidence there was any necessity to cut off the 

 horns of these cows. 



Fou th — Neither does it appear that doing so was an advantage to them, but the whole 

 evidence leads to the conclusion that it was a decided disadvantage to each individual cow to 

 have the horns cut off. 



Fifth— There being no advantage to the cows to compensate for the torture and suffering 

 endured by them, there should be adequate advantage to the public generally, and here in our 

 opinions the defence has equally failed to make it appear that such is the case. 



Sixth— But on the contrary, cutting off the horns of milch cows and other cattle, instead of 

 being an advantage, may be the means whereby fraud may be perpetrated upon the general 

 public. It is shown in the evidence that after a cow is about five years old the horn is the 

 surest means of telling its age, consequently a fraudulent dealer may more easily deceive and 

 palm off upon the purchaser an old animal with its horns cut off, also in judging their breed and 

 milking qualities. 



'1 he decision is that each of the defendants be fined $50 and costs forthwith and in default 

 o c payment, one month in the county jad. 



Mr. Cameron gave notice that the judgment would be appealed against at 

 the next General Sessions of the Peace. 



The proceedings at the trial were given a widespread publicity and an 

 animated newspaper controversy was carried on for several weeks. The greatest 

 difference of opinion was noticeable, the advocates of the practice claiming tha t 

 it was a positive kindness to the animals, in addition to being a commercial 

 advantage, while many who were opposed to it regarded the operation as one of 

 excruciating torture. 



A COMMISSION APPOINTED. 



In view of these circumstances, a Commission was issued on March 9 by 

 the Ontario Government to Hon. Charles Drury of Crown Hill, Farmer ; Richard 

 Gibson of Delaware, Breeder; D. M. Macpherson of Lancaster, Dairyman; 

 Andrew Smith of Toronto, Veterinarian, Henry Glendinning of Manilla, 

 Farmer, and J. J. Kelso of Toronto, Journalist, authorizing and requiring them 

 "To obtain the fullest information in reference to the practice recently introduced 

 into this province of dehorning cattle, and to make full enquiry into and report 

 with all reasonable speed the reasons for and against the practice, as well by the 



