100 



At the request of Mr. Edward York the following affidavit from Mr. Gracey was read and 

 tiled (alluded to in Mr. Cook's former evidence, on page 93) : 



Statutory Declaration. 

 Dominion of Canada, "^ 



t ounty of Elgin, - In the matter of Dehorning Cattle. 

 To wit : J 



I, Daniel Gracey, of the township of Malahide, county of Elgin, farmer, do solemnly 

 declare that I had five head of cattle dehorned and witnessed the operation. I do not think it 

 can be considered cruel t > dehorn. I saw no bad results from said dehorning. My cattle 

 thrived and did better afterwards. There was no matter or pus formed at the roots of the 

 horns. The horns dried up in two or three days Will have more dehorned if the law allows 

 me to do so. I had at that time no other cattle that could be dehorned. I believe it to be an 

 advantage to the owners of cattle to have them dehorned. 



And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by 

 virtue of the Act respecting extra-judicial oaths. 



Declared before me at Springfield, in the county ^ 



of Elgin, this 28th day of May, A.D. I D Qrac 



1892. J. B. Lucas, f 



A Commissioner, etc. J 



Theophilus V. Hutchinson, M. D., being sworn, gave evidence as follows: I am the 

 Medical Health Officer for th j city of London, and gave evidence in the case of the Queen v. 

 York, for cruelty to animals. I have the general supervision of all sanitary matters and as the 

 sale of milk comes under my notice I visit and inspect about ninety dairies twice a year. 



Q. Have you farmed an opinion as to the necessity or desirability of dehorning? A. I 

 think in some cases it is necessary, but in general I think it is not. I would consider it a cruel 

 operation. While some good might result the proportion is not such as to justify the practice. 

 I would look at the question from the public good, and not from the individual benefit stand- 

 point. Judging from the anatomy of the part I would say that the horn could not be taken off 

 without causing considerable pain. All bones are covered with an inside and outside periosteum. 

 This is not sensitive, but the membrane is. The hard flinty part has very few nerves of feeling, 

 but the moment you strike the opening you sever the membrane and the supply of nerves that 

 run up the horn* and that is highly sensitive. Wherever there is a blood vessel there is a 

 sensory nerve accompanying it. I think there would be more pain and a greater rise in the 

 temperature where the horn is accidentally knocked off, than where it is properly taken off. 



Q. Tu* re are certain indications of pain that would be noticeable at once? A. Yes, such 

 as shaking the head, blowing the nose, sometimes holding the head high ; at other times running 

 around or standing in a corner ; a rise in temperature and so on. You could tell there was 

 pain, but not the degree. 



Q. Suppose that in five and a half seconds the horn was severed completely ; that the 

 temperature was taken before and two hours after the operation without much difference being 

 indicated, and that there were none of the usual signs of pain, what would you conclude ? 

 A. Well, it would take longer than two hours for the temperature to rise — probably until 

 inflammation set in. 



Q. Is the rise in temperature due to inflammatory action? A. Yes, but there are cases, 

 such as fevers, where there would be a rise without inflammatory action. 



Q. So far as you have observed you would not expect a cow that had its horns knocked off 

 to act in the way described >. A. No. 



Q. Is it a fact, that where there is vitality left nature immediately begins to repair the 

 damase ! A. Always. 



Q. Suppose you visited a herd of cows a week after dehorning and found there was a dis- 

 charge, would you immediately conclude that that was pus ? A. No. Pus is the product of 

 inflammatory action. 



Q. Might there be a discharge without inflammatory action ? A. The first process is a 

 discharge of limpus or thin mucous. This closes over the wound and subsequently becomes a 

 tissue of the body — that is, providing the animal is in good health. If the animal is in bad 

 health then the process of repair would degenerate into pus, and the discharge would be inflam- 

 matory. An experienced man can readily distinguish between mucous and pus. 



Q. Now, witnesses say they have observed a discharge of matter and many have come to 

 the conclusion that it was a discharge of pus, indicating inflammatory action i A. A healthy 

 discharge for the covering up of the wound would not ordinarily be noticed. The discharge that 

 would attract attention would probably be pus. 



< L >. Suppose there was no odor? A. Well, from some pus there is no odor. 



