656 
PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE. 
think I could show that the removal of each horn is a separate 
offence within the meaning of the Act, and hence the penalties for 
the removal of fifty-six horns would be 36280. 
Mr. Caruth — Mr. O’Rorke might just as reasonably allege that 
every rasp of the saw caused pain, and was, therefore, a separate 
offence. 
The hearing being concluded — 
Mr. Young said — The facts of this case have been admitted, and 
the Court has paid due attention to all that has been said on either 
side of it. The practice of horning, so as to make cattle more 
profitable to the owner, is not uncommon in this country, and it 
may have been adopted unwittingly or without due consideration in 
this case ; but, after hearing Mr. M‘Kenna’s testimony upon the 
subject, the bench cannot avoid the conclusion that it is an act of 
cruelty, punishable under the statute. We are of opinion, however, 
that a conviction in one case will be a sufficient vindication of the 
law ; and our decision is that the defendants are to pay a fine of 
£5 — James Graham and George Graham £2 10s. each, with costs. 
The public must now understand that the horning of cattle is an 
unlawful offence, and future cases of it will be punished with a very 
heavy penalty indeed . — Ballymena Observer. 
PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE. 
CATTLE DISEASES. 
Mr. Gore Langton asked the Vice-President of the Council 
whether he had received a report from the local authority for the 
county of Somerset showing the number of cases of pleuro-pneu- 
monia and foot and mouth disease which had occurred in the county 
of Somerset for the three months ending the 25th of June last, and 
whether he would have any objection to lay the report upon the 
table. 
Mr. Neyille-Grenville asked the right hon. gentleman whether 
he had received reports from other counties besides Somerset 
respecting the increase of pleuro-pneumonia and foot and mouth 
disease. 
Mr. W. E. Forster said a report had been received from the local 
authority of the county of Somerset covering the period between 
April 3rd, 1870, and June 24th, 18/0 ; but this report did not quite 
agree with the report furnished to the Privy Council by the In- 
spector, and until they could ascertain the cause of the discrepancy 
there would be no advantage in laying it upon the table of the 
House. 
With regard to the foot and mouth disease, it had been prevalent 
in Somerset of late, though, perhaps, not to the same extent as it 
had prevailed in other parts of the country during the autumn of 
