VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
655 
profession. The castration of animals is necessary in some cases. 
It tames them, tends to the suppression of viciousness, and makes 
them more useful and profitable to man. It is a very painful ope- 
ration — quite as painful as the horning of cattle. Castration on 
scientific principles is practised in the veterinary profession. 
To the Bench — The castration of horses is necessary to public 
safety, and makes the animal more useful and manageable. I do 
not think that taking off horns would improve cattle. 
Mr. Caruth admitted that all animals should be treated with kind- 
ness and humanity. But there were many nice considerations as to 
the legal meaning of “ cruelty,” and many differences of opinion 
as to what constituted a punishable offence under the statute. It 
had been admitted that the practice of castration was as painful as 
that of horning ; and although the former had been sanctioned by 
people in high places, and reduced to a science, yet it was scientific 
cruelty after all, and tortured the animal quite as much as the re- 
moval of a horn. If horning was a crime on account of its cruelty, 
the practice of castration was just as bad. The object of the prac- 
tice in each case — and the defence alleged in each case — is to make 
the animal more profitable to the owner ; and the defendants had 
sanctioned the horning of their cattle simply with view to make 
them a more profitable stock. If horning was an offence under the 
statute, the practice of castration, however scientifically performed, 
was an offence as great, and every argument in defence of the one 
practice was applicable to the other. He would not argue that 
horning was not an act of cruelty, but he would maintain that the 
other practice was equally so ; and although he felt that his clients 
must be convicted, he would, under the circnmstances, ask the 
bench to impose a nominal penalty, and the smallest coin in the 
realm would be sufficient. 
Mr. Montgomery — There is one description of animal with 
regard to which castration, however painful, may be defended as an 
act of necessity. 
Mr. Young (to Mr. Caruth ) — Do you defend horning on the 
ground of its necessity, or public convenience ? 
Mr. Caruth — No ; it is a question of profit ; the additional value 
of the cattle to the owner — -just as in the case of the castration of 
rams, and various other painful practices sanctioned everywhere. 
The horns were not cut off wantonly, or for the wilful infliction of 
pain, but simply with intent to make the cattle more valuable ; and 
that is my argument for a mitigation of the penalty. If my clients 
are to be punished for attention to such interests in this case, it is 
to be hoped that the Belfast Society will direct their attention to 
other cases equally cruel, without any better excuse for them. 
Mr. O'Rorke — The bench have been asked to impose a fine pay- 
able with the smallest coin of the realm, which they are told 
will have the eflect of putting a stop to such offences. Why, it 
would only encourage them. Twenty-eight separate offences 
have been committed, and the defendants are liable to penalties 
amounting to £140. If I were disposed to press rigorously, I 
