540 CRUELTY AND MALICIOUS MISCHIEF. 



the operation; that it thrives with them better than an animal 

 from which the horns are not removed; that, in being car- 

 ried in railway wagons, the dishorned animals suffer less, and 

 are carried with greater safety than animals of the same kind 

 with the horns on; that on board of steamers, the cattle with 

 horns are liable to sufifer from being gored one by the other ; 

 but, if the horns are removed from all, they make the sea- 

 journey in safety; that, after being dishorned, numbers can 

 with safety be fed in enclosed places that could not with equal 

 safety be fed in places of the same extent; and they finally 

 produced evidence, which is not contradicted, to prove that in 

 the English markets, to which they resort for sale, the ani- 

 mals dishorned bring £2 per head more than animals of 

 the same weight and quality would with horns on." 



In Scotland also, the operation if skilfully performed has 

 been held not to be cruelty,^* and there is a similar decision 

 in Canada.^^ In Ohio it has been held in a police court case 

 to be within a statute declaring it a misdemeanor to torture 

 an animal, and not to be excused on the ground of conveni- 

 ence and profit to the owner and dealer.*® 



The operation of "spaying" performed on cows has been 

 held justifiable as being done with the object of increasing 

 weight and securing proper development, even if it is in fact 

 unnecessary and useless.*'' This decision has been criticised 

 on the ground that no particular benefit to humanity was 

 proved to result from the practice of spaying.** 



'* Renton v. Wilson, 15 ReUie (Sc. Ct. Justic.) 84; Todrick v. Wilson, 

 18 id. 41. See an article from the Journal of Jurisprudence (Sc.) disap- 

 proving of these decisions, quoted in 25 Ir. L. T. 259: "We still . 

 hold to the opinion of the English judges that dishorning "causes extreme 

 pain without an adequate and reasonable object, and is an unnecessary 

 abuse of the animal, and therefore unjustifiable under the existing 

 statute.' " 



"' S. P. C. A. V. Shepard, 13 Leg. News (Can.) 127. 



" State V. Crichton, 4 O. Dec. 481. 



'' Lewis V. Fermor, 18 Q. B. D. 532. And see 28 Ir. L. T. 301. 



'* 51 J. P. s6i, quoted in 21 Ir. L. T. 536. 



