The Magistrates of Sittingbonrne, in Kent, disposed, on Monday, of
a summons under the Cruelty to Animals Act, issued by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, against a publican and a veterinary surgeon, for causing to be cut and cutting, respectively, three cocks' combs,—a practice which was represented as cruel and unnecessary and as of no sort of benefit to the creatures themselves. The evidence of another veterinary surgeon was taken to prove that several nerves were cut through in the process, and that the creatures suffered much pain for no good end ; and Mr. Harrison Weir, the animal painter, gave it as his belief that the practice was a very painful one, and that, after all, it spoilt the appearance of the creatures sub- jected to it. The magistrates, however, dismissed the case, hold- ing that it was not one which came within the meaning of the Cruelty to Animals Act, but they granted an appeal to a higher Court on the point. The decision was certaini,} a very curious one, unless the magistrates held that the practice is really one in- tended to promote the animal's own good. Otherwise it is quite
clear, that whether the pain inflicted be sufficient or insufficient to warrant the infliction of any penalty under the Act, the Act certainly applies. Indeed, wherever the Act has been applied, it has been to punish the infliction of suffering on animals for an inadequate or trivial end. If the bantam-cocks were ill-treated at all, it is quite certain that their ill-treatment was punishable by Martin's Act.
Previous page
