Alleged Cruelty to Animals.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5168, 29 January 1895, Page 3

Alleged Cruelty to Animals.

m DEHOisNINGh CATTLE. At the Rangiora Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr H. W. Bishop, Stipendiary Magistrate, and Messrs A. Todd and M. Whatman, J.P.s, George W. Luzton was charged with 'having, on Dec. 31, cruelly ill- treated" certain cattle by dehorning them. The charge waß laid at the instigation of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to. Animals, and Mr Reginald Foster, Inspector, appeared on its behalf. Thomas White, yardman at Mr W. Boss's saleyards, stated he was present when defendant was dehorning cattle on Dec. 31. Some of the cattle were from three to four years old. The animals were roped up, and defendant cut off their horns with a saw. He had a proper instrument for taking off the horns, but it was not strong enough for the work, the horns being too large. Defendant broke the instrument and also a meat saw; but afterwards finished the job with a thick, Btrong saw. The blood spurted from the animals' horns in a stream more than a yard long. He considered the animals were cruelly treated. i William Pearson gave evidence that in his opinion the animals were too old to operate upon. Believed dehorning was right enough when the cattle were done young. To defendant: Waß aware that the practice of dehorning had been carried on for years on the Peninsula, but he believed proper appliances were used and the cattle were operated upon when young. For the defence Patrick -O'Neil stated that he saw the cattle the day after the dehorning, and tbey appeared none the worse. In the case of the oldest animal it ! waß necessary to remove its horns, it ] being dangerous. M.' Macfarlane stated that it was beneficial to cattle to have their horns removed. Had purchased a line of eighty three-year-old steers which had recently been dehorned. Dehorning was largely practised in America, and also in the colony, on the Peninsula, and it was not considered to be cruelty when properly done. i To the Bench : Dehorned cattle did I better than others. They were quieter when being driven, and also fed better, the loss of their horns seeming to change their natures, William Trotter, cattle dealer, stated that cattle aa old aB those treated by defendant were frequently brought to the Addington Yards showing signs of recent dehorning, and no objection to this treatment had been raised. The operation, when skilfully done, was not more cruel than others performed on animals. He saw defendant dehorning the cattle, and did not consider that he was intentionally cruel. . The oldest animal operated upon was dangerous, and it was a wise act to dehorn it. Defendant might have had better appliances for holding the cattle for the operation. Reginald Foster Btatedthat he had never seen the operation of dehorning performed. Waß aware that cattle thrived better after their horns were removed, but the operation should be done when the cattle were young. Was aware that Mr Hay, of the Peninsula, and Mr Rutherford, of Leslie Hills, systematically dehorned their cattle, but they had all proper appliances, and the operation was almost an instantaneous one. Considered that sawing off the horns bb defendant had done was most deoided cruelty. The Society he represented did not contend that it was illegal to dehorn cattle, but it was its duty to ace that no unnecessary cruelty waß practised. It waa considered that defendant had not the proper appliances, and therefore cruelty resulted. The Society did not wish to piese for a heavy penalty, but had laid tbe information to show that duo oare

must be exercised not to cause cattle unnecessary pain. , The Stipendiary Magistrate said it was apparent that Mr Luxton considered he was perfectly justified in dehorning the cattle under the circumstances. He (Mr Bishop) must, however, hold that undue cruelty had been exercised. He did not believe that it was intended that beauts four and five years old should be dehorned. He did not wißh to impute a deliberate act of cruelty to defendant, but he m,ust uphold the law and convict. Defendant would be fined ls and coßts 18s. i !