654 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
close to the skull as to cause protrusion of the brain ; and it was 
impossible to conceive a more gross or deliberate violation of the 
statute for Prevention of Cruelty to Dumb Animals — 13 and 14 
Vic., chap. 92. The prosecution had been brought under the 2nd 
section of the Act [produced and read], and the penalty was £5 
for every offence. In this case twenty-eight separate offences had 
been committed, and hence the total liability of the defendants 
amounted to £140. The cattle would probably have been more 
profitable to the owners with the horns off. He understood they 
were of a particular class, intended for sale in a certain English 
market, where animals with horns were objected to ; but no motive 
of private or personal advantage could warrant the infliction of such 
torture. The defendants were merchants of long standing, large 
property, and occupying a most respectable position in Ballymena ; 
but they should be more cautious in their proceedings, and the 
present prosecution would be a warning to other cattle-owners who 
were following the same inhuman practice. 
Mr. Caruth said he would narrow the ground of controversy in 
this case, and save the time of the Court, by admitting that the 
horns had been cut off with the knowledge and under the authority 
of his clients. Hence the only question which the bench had to 
consider would be whether the act complained of was or was not an 
infringement of law, within the meaning of the statute. 
Mr. O'RorJce accepted that issue ; and said he would not insult 
the intellect of even the most stolid juror by supposing it possible 
he could come to any other conclusion than that there had been a 
gross violation of the Act. 
Sub-Constable Little examined — I visited the defendants’ farm at 
Craigywarren on the 24th of May last. In one of the fields I 
found twenty-seven head of cattle — bullocks and heifers, and in 
another field a cow. The horns of all these cattle had been cut off 
close to the skull — so close that in some cases a part of the skull 
had been taken with them, and I could almost see through their 
heads. Blood and matter of some kind were trickling from the 
wounds. I took it to be the brains of the cattle that I saw pro- 
truding. With a few exceptions the animals were not feeding, and 
they all appeared to be suffering. 
James M'Kenna examined — I am a veterinary surgeon, and 
Honorary Inspector to the Belfast Society for the Prevention of 
Cruelty to Animals. I heard the testimony given by the last wit- 
ness. The interior of a horn is composed of blood-vessels, nerves, 
and could not be cut near the root without excruciating agony to the 
animal. No part of a horn, unless an inch or two of the top, 
could be taken away without causing pain. If cut close to the 
skull, a portion of the brain might protrude without resulting in 
death. 
Cross-examined — If horns were taken off incautiously — say with 
a blunt saw — injury to the skull might ensue. I have heard of the 
practice of “horning” cattle, but I never saw it done, and I would 
not do such a thing myself ; the practice is not recognised by the 
