INJURING FOR SPORT ; DISHORNING AXD SPAYING. 539' 



But the statutory penalties against it are restricted to combats 

 in a place particularly kept for the purpose.''* "Under these 

 decisions it would appear that a person may daily move about 

 from one field or place to another and fight cocks in presence 

 of invited spectators, regardless of the statute which is meant 

 to prevent cruelty to animals in every place, provided he does 

 not charge for admission into the field or place, which would 

 probably amount to keeping a place for the purpose." '''* 



A match took place between the owners of two dogs to 

 ascertain which could kill the greater number of rabbits by 

 running after them in a field, three acres in area, walled in so 

 that the rabbits could not escape. It was held that this was 

 not "baiting animals" within the meaning of a statute. 

 Cockburn, C. J., said : "That term is usually applied when 

 an animal is tied to a stake or confined so that it cannot es- 

 cape." *" 



The dishorning of cattle has been held to be cruelty to ani- 

 mals in England on the ground that no adequate object was 

 to be attained to justify such a proceeding.*^ A similar de- 

 cision was made in an Irish case,*^ but departed from in later 

 Irish cases which held that if the operation was performed 

 with due care and skill for the purpose of rendering the cattle 

 more profitable to farmers and exporters in the course of 

 their trade, it was not cruelty.*^ Murphy, J., said in Cal- 

 laghan v. S. P. C. A. : "The defendants have procured evidence 

 to show, first, that the pain caused by the operation com- 

 plained of is very brief; that the animal feeds very soon after 



™ Morley v. Greenhalgh, 3 B. & S. 374; Clark v. Hague, 8 Cox. C. C. 

 324; Coyne v. Brady, 12 Ir. C. L. R. 577, 7 Ir. Jur. N. S. 105. And see 

 Brown v. Renton. 19 Rettie (Sc Ct. Justic.) 22, decided under a similar 

 Scotch- statute. 



"23 Ir. L. T. 16. As to what is a "public place" within the prohibition 

 of a statute against cock-fighting, see Finnem v. State, nS Ala. 106. 



" Pitts V. Millar, L. R. 9 Q. B. 380. " Ford v. Wiley, 23 Q. B. D. 203. 



"' Brady v. M'Argle, 14 L. R. Ir. 174. 



■^ Callaghan v. S. P. C. A., 16 L. R. Ir. 325; Reg. v. M'Donagh, 28 id. 

 204. 



