Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/632

 410 Sect.

Animals. 1.

General Offences. Ill-treating

captive wild animals.

879. The importance of this distinction has been greatly discounted by a modern amending statute (s), which makes any person guilty of an offence who, whilst an animal is in captivity or close confinement, or is maimed, pinioned, or subjected to any appliance or contrivance for the purpose of hindering or preventing its escape from such captivity or confinement, by wantonly or unreasonably doing or omitting any act, causes or permits to be caused any unnecessary suffering to such animal, or cruelly abuses, infuriates, teases, or terrifies it, or permits it to be so treated (t). The word " animal " in this statute means any bird, beast, fish, or reptile, not included in the definition above mentioned (^0 i-e., practically any living thing, except insects, that cannot be classed as a domestic animal. The amending Act does not apply to any act done or any omission in the course of destroying any animal, or of preparing any animal for destruction, as food for mankind, nor to lawful vivisection {x), nor to the hunting or coursing of any animal which has not been liberated in a mutilated or injured state in order to facilitate its capture or destruction (y). ,

Meaning

880.

of

" cruelly

abuse or torture."

important to ascertain as nearly as possible what

It is

meant in the principal Act by the words cruelly abuse The mere infliction of pain, even if extreme pain,

is

or torture."

not by

is

constitute the offence. Pain is constantly inflicted upon the brute creation under various sanctions, such as surgery, or war, or where it is reasonably necessary. The mere whim or convenience or, as a rule, the profit of man will not constitute reasonable necessity though an ojDeration without which an animal does not attain its full development, or is not so serviceable, or is dangerous, may be justified as ''necessary" if properly done. No doubt suffering is caused by the breaking in or the castration and docking of horses, but such acts may usually be justified on the principles above stated, if fairly and reasonably done (2). The most terse and satisfactory definition of the cruelty aimed at by the statute is "the unnecessary abuse of the animal "(a). Branding lambs on the nose with a hot iron is not necessarily cruelly ill-treating them, since it may be reasonably necessary for their identification {b). In accordance with the principles above stated, the very painful operation of dishorning cattle by salving off their horns close to their heads for the purpose of slightly increasing their value, and for convenience in feeding and packing, was held to be unjustifiable and unnecessary, and to be cruelty within the meaning of the Act (c). itself

sufficient

to



Dishorning cattle.

(s)

Wild Animals

Ibid., (u) Ibid., {t)

I.e.,

(cc)

c.

s.

s.

in Captivity Protection Act, 1900 (63

&

64 Yict.

c. 33).

2. 1.

under the Prevention

of Cruelty to

Animals Act, 1876 (39

&

40 Vict,

77). {y) (z)

Act of 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 33), s. 4. Ford V. JVileij (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 203, per Lord Coleridge,

Hawkins,

C.J.,

and

J.

Budge v. Parsons (1863), 3 B. & S. 382, per Wightman, J. Bowyer v. Morgan (1906), 95 L. T. 772. (c) Ford V. Wiley, supra. The Court of Justiciary in Scotland and the Queen's Bench Division in Ireland refused to follow this case, holding that (a)

{b)