104 



London, Friday, June 3rd. 



The Commission resumed its investigation in the Court House at 10 o'clock on Friday morn- 

 ing, June 3rd. 



Mr. Ehward York submitted a statement setting forth that for the defence in the esse of 

 The Queen v. York, the sum of $237 had been expended, in addition to the loss of time and 

 travelling expenses of thirty-three witnesses and others interested. 



Mr. Cha&LBS Hi PC1UN80N, Crown Attorney for the County of Middlesex, being sworn, 

 submitted a statement of the disbursement of $114 received from the Ontario Government for 

 witnesses' and magistrates' fees. He also put in the following statement of facts : 



RE DISHORNING COMMISSION. 

 The Statemknt of Charles S. Hutchinson, County Crown Attorney. 



" I undertook the prosecution of W. V. Nigh at the request of certain respectable and reliable per- 

 sons interested in the welfare of horned domestic animals, whose names I prefer not to mention. Unfor- 

 tunately before the case came to trial, I met with an accident which prevented my attending to the matter 

 myself, and although it was placed in competent hands and I am sure that everything was done that could 

 be reasonably expected, the case for some reason or other miscarried and was dismissed. 



'Some time afterwards, the prosecution against William York and others was brought on under simi- 

 lar influeuces— as an infringement of the Dominion Act relating to cruelty to animals— in dehorning some- 

 where about thirty milch cows, thus cruelly and unnecessarily mutilating the unfortunate animals. In or- 

 der to make sure of the facts before commencing proceedings, I induced C. S. Tamlin, V.S., and Detective 

 Allen to visit the defendant, Wm. York's farm and inspect the dehorned cows, which they did accordingly 

 with the results stated in their evidence before the magistrates. Feeling, therefore, sure of my ground, I 

 caused the three defendants, Wm. York, Edward York, and W.A . Elliott to be summoned to answer te 

 said charge of unnecessary cruelty to these thirty cows by cutting off their horns, and the case therefore 

 came for trial before Justices Smyth and Lacey in this shape, with the result that all three defendants were 

 convicted and fined $50 and costs. They appealed in the ordinary way to the next sessions, which will 

 open on Monday next, when the case would have come before the proper legal tribunal in the mannei pro- 

 vided by the Dominion criminal law, if proceedings had not been stayed by the order of the Attorney- 

 General of Ontario, previous to the appointing of the Commission for inquiring into the propriety, or 

 otherwise, of the practice of dishorning. 



"I wish here to call the attention of the Commission to the fact that the prosecution in question was 

 limited to the acts of cruelty alleged to have been committed upon these particular thirty cows, and did 

 not, therefore, involve the question whether or not dishorning mierhtnot in certain cases be permissible, and 

 it was to make this fact clear that at the second sittings of the magisterial court, I defined in precise para- 

 graphs, the questions intended for the consideration of the Bench in relation to the acts of cruelty charged. 



" I made an appeal to the public for aid which was kindly responded to by many of our leading citi- 

 zens and by outside humane societies, notably of Toronto, Simcoe and Niagara Falls, but unhappily not by 

 our local society, although I attended a meeting of the society and urged as forcibly as I knew how the 

 claims of the domestic cow, to whom we all are so much indebted, to be protected from cruel treatment by 

 cruel, greedy men, and offered my services gratuitously to conduct whatever proceedings might be found 

 necessary. My appeal to the London Humane Society having so completely failed, I had no alternative 

 but to proceed and do my best under somewhat discouraging circumstances. 



" In my appeal I stated the grounds on which I relied for supporting the prosecution, as fully as I 

 could then or can now. I therefore beg to refer the Commission to that appeal of which I ask permission 

 to present a copy. 



" I will merely add that the text of my appeal is to be found in the second paragraph, wherein I state, 

 ' that a farmer when accused lately of cruelty to his cows by dishorning a large number, replied that he 

 had the right to do what he liked with his own property, irrespective of the consequences.' 



"These words I and others heard uttered by Mr. Wm. York. " And itis against this principle I con- 

 tend in behalf of our fellow creatures, the milch cows, who have personal interests as sacred as our own 

 and towards whom no cruelty should be permitted for the sake of mere personal gain. 



Charles Hutchinson, 

 London, June 3, 1892. County Crown-Attorney. 



Mr. Drury. — I see Mr. Hutchinson, that in the indictment of the recent case you speak 

 of the advantage to the animals themselves and to the public generally ; Lord Coleridge, I 

 believe, lays it down that there must be proportion of gain to the suffering. We would like to 

 have your views on this point. You say for cruelly and unnecessarily torturing thirty cows — 

 now one authority says it may be a question as to the manner in which the operation is performed I 

 A. I limit everything to these particular cows — nothing was done for these animals after the 

 operation. 



Q. In one cas*e it might be well done and in another it might not ? A. Assuming that in 

 any one particular case it was proved that the cow was a particularly vicious one and there was 

 do other way in which it could be subdued— still the obligation would rest upon the owner to 



