The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-08-02
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS,

CRUELTY 70 ANIMALS,
Our chlvalric neia hbor Of the hcay,me
having taken charge pf the enforcement OF the
law against cruelty To animals, is chargeable
with grave omission of q recently adjudged
case by one of the highest courts OF England
We invite the attention of our neIghbor to this
case, and urge uponit the claims of the inter
| estipg animals whose rights and feelings are
seriously involved III the extension of the pen.
| altles Of the Pcapuhe law to the perpetrators
OF this form Of cruelty to animals. We can.
not presume that the large philanthropy 81
our neighbor Is limited to the canine race
Hence our regret at It's oversight and indifer.
ence to this form Of cruelty, which is of more
general practice and usage than any to which
Tray, Blanche and Sweetheart and all the
| dogs of high and low degree is subjected.
| We refer to the cruelty OF cutting the combs
of chicken cocks, so universal In this State
and throughout the country. A case arose.
under the law of England, which Is eouched
In the same phrase as the Picay7r,e's law,
which has recently been adjudicated by one
OF the highest courts of the Kingdom The
report OF it will be found In the last published
volume OF Moak.
The case Is thus stated
AT petty session at Sellingbourne, in
Kent, informations were filed by the in
spector to the Rochester branch Of the Royal
Society for the Prevention Of Cruelty to Ami
mails against Manning, veterinary surgeon,
for having, ON the twentieth of November,
1875, unlawfplly and cruelty ill-treated three
cocks, and against Sayer, the owner OF the
cocks, for fnlawfully causing them to be 30
liberated, jcoatrary ito IL and ID Victoria,
c. %.
The cash was heard in the Court of Ex-
chequer cd appeal.
The appellant stated that he had found at
Sayers house three bantam cocks, whose
combs hap been cut close to their beads, pro-
ducing uHhealed scabs on their heads Sayer
justified the comb cutting as necessary to OBJ
tain prizes at an exhibition Of fowls about to
come off, Manning, the veterinary surgeon
who performed the operation, admitted that
1t involvef measure OF pain to the birds, but
1t was NIT very great and soon over. The
birds winged their heads during the cutting
and bobted them two or three times when
cut. He bad been In the habit of performing
this operation for forty years. They were
full-grown birds, duck winged ~
A member OF the Royal College Of Veter-
mary Surgeons testified that great pain was
caused to cocks In cutting their combs The
only object of such operation was for fight
ing purposes. There was no portion of the
comb without nerve which communicated
with the spinal cord; Il was tissue Of blood
vessels.
Several other witnesses testified to the
same purport. One of these, an animal
painter and artist, Thought that clubbing"
as comb-cutting Is styled In England, must
be very painful and interfered with nature
The respondents denied all these conclusions,
and affirmed the necessity, utility and uni
versatility Of cutting the combs of all game
cocks; that SO far from the cutting being
cruel, it was for the real benefit of the birds
themselves, inasmuch as In case they quar-
relied and fought with one another In the
barnyard they could not pull one another by
the comb, In which way they were often Sc
riously injured.
Another veterinary surgeon for respondents
had a very different opinion from his brother
OF the nature Of cocks comb. He called it a
heshy excrescence and did not believe it con-
tanned nerves comm Indicating with the brain.
It was benefit to! the cocks, who were natur-
ally pugHacious and in rencOntreS In the barn
yard the cock with his comb cut had great
over his adversary whose comb
remained in its natural state. The operation
took but quarter Of a minute and the cocks
did not appear to suffer from 1t. The combs
of cocks werefrequently frost-bittsn and they
suffered greatly therefIom. Upon this show
ing the case was most ably and elaboratelv
argued by distinguished Queens counsel.
The prosecuting counsel contending that
to subject animals to wanton cruelty to OBJ
tain prizes at an exhibition, or to enable them
to fight more successfully, was not legal de-
tense. Suppose" he said, there was prize
for one-eyed dogs-would a man be justified
in putting out one eye Of his dog to qualify
1t for exhibition? To justify the pain it must
be for the necessary use Of the animal Take
the case Of terriers used for rafting. Would
it be lawful to cut the ears of terriers, that
they might not be worried or laid hold of bv
rats, or because person could not obtain
prizes unless the ears were cut?" Counsel on
the other side made a strong argument for
the defendant. He contended that there were
other much more serious forms of interior
ence with the birds that were legaIized; but
comb-euttng was great benefit to him.
COCKS would fight and mangIe their combs IL
hey had any. The ears OF fox-hounds are
'ounded toImake them more comfortable Ia