ORIGIN OF THE PRACTICE IN ONTARIO 



The circumstances leading to the appointment of a Commission are as 

 follows : 



The practice of dehorning cattle appears from the evidence to have been 

 first introduced into this Province in the year 1 888, by Messrs. Kinney and Johnson, 

 farmers, of South Norwich, Oxford county. It was not however, adopted to 

 any great extent until February, 1890, when Mr. Chauncey Smith, a farmer's son 

 residing in the township of Dereham, Oxford county, on returning from a visit 

 to the State of Illinois, where the practice prevailed, set an example by dehorning 

 his father's herd. In a short time this example was followed by Mr. Smith's 

 neighbors, many of whom became warm advocates of the practice. 



Considerable controversy arose as to the amount of pain involved in the 

 operation, and in February, 1891, Mr. W. V. Nigh, a farmer of Avon, Middlesex 

 county, was prosecuted before two Justices of the Peace at London on the charge 

 of cruelty. The case was dismissed on the evidence of ten witnesses that the 

 operation was a beneficial one and the suffering of short duration. 



The practice continued to extend, and the services of Messrs. Chauncey 

 Smith and W. A. Elliott, who had made a study of the operation, were frequently 

 in demand. Mr. Smith stated in evidence that he had dehorned 250 head, while 

 Mr. Elliott gave the number of cattle he had operated upon to be about 400. The 

 great majority of these operations took place in Oxford, Norfolk and Elgin coun- 

 ties, and although dehorning has been tried experimentally in various parts of 

 the province, the practice is largely confined at present to the district mentioned. 



Trial at London. 



Acting on behalf of the opponents of the practice, Mr. Charles Hutchinson, 

 Crown Attorney of Middlesex, instituted proceedings in January, 1892, against 

 Messrs. William York, sr., W. A. Elliott and Edward York, charging them with 

 cruelty to animals in having cut off the horns of the cattle of the first named defend- 

 ant. The case was called at the Interim Sessions, London, on January 6th, before 

 Messrs. Smythe and Lacey, Justices of the Peace for the county of Middlesex. Mr. 

 Hutchinson conducted the prosecution, while Messrs. E R. Cameron and R. M. C. 

 Toothe appeared for the defence. In view of the importance of the case the 

 defendants asked that it be tried before a full bench of magistrates, but this 

 was not conceded. Evidence for the prosecution was given by two veterinary 

 surgeons, one medical practitioner, two butchers and five farmers, none of 

 whom had ever seen or performed the operation, but who believed from the 

 structure of the horn that the pain would be very great. For the defence 



