538 CRUELTY AND MALICIOUS MISCHIEF. 



against a statute making it an offense "needlessly to kill," on 

 the ground that there was no mutilation, but on the contrary 

 the birds were killed in a more humane way than by wringmg 

 their necks, the ordinary method. 



So, in Pennsylvania, a member of a gun club who at a. 

 pigeon shooting match, shoots at and wounds a pigeon let 

 loose from a trap, which is immediately killed on discovery 

 of its wounded condition, is not guilty of "wantonly or cruelly 

 ill-treating or abusing" it. There was held to be no real dis- 

 tinction between a bird in a cage and one in a wood which 

 a sportsman would undoubtedly have the right to kill. "The 

 right to kill the pigeon was and must be conceded, and there 

 is no finding of the jury, that its suffering was greater because 

 of the manner of its death than if it had been killed in some 

 other way." '^^ There is a similar decision in Canada ;'^^ but 

 in North Carolina pigeon-shooting was held to be an ofYense 

 under the code defining "cruelty" as including every act, 

 omission and neglect whereby unjustifiable physical pain, 

 suflfering or death is caused or permitted.'^ So, also, in Col- 

 orado, where the statute prohibited needless mutilation or 

 torture.'^* 



The reasoning in these cases would seem to apply to fox- 

 hunting, though in Massachusetts this has been held to be i 

 form of cruelty. '° 



Cock-fighting has been held to be "cruelty to domestic ani- 

 mals" in England and Ireland,^® though not in Scotland.''^^ 



" Com. V. Lewis, 140 Pa. St. 261, reversing 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 558. 



" S. P. C. A. V. Coursolles (Canada Police Court), cited in 20 Ir. L_ 

 T. 548. 



" State z: Porter, 112 N. C. 887. 



"Waters v. Peo. (Colo.), 46 Pac. Rep. 112. 



" Com. V. Turner, 145 Mass. 296. See Renton v. Wilson, 15 Rettie (Sc_ 



Ct. Justic.) 84, where Lord Young said obiter that fox hunting was not 



an offense under the statute. 



'"■'Budsc r. Parsons. 3 B. & S. ,^82; Bates r. ^TcCormick, 8 Ir. Tur. N. 

 S. 239. 



"Jolmstone v. .\bercrombie, 3 White Justic. Rep. (So.) 432. See r 

 Scots. L, T. 180, 2Ti: 2 id. 622. Cf. Brown v. Renton, infra. 



