The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-09-10

yas o question bu, what the dog had been improperly
Killed the action would have been malnlainaoie rms
@ nnedes Thai there can be and is property in dog
wbosber absolute or qualified Is immaterni-t Is enough
~ aa,isfy our statute against the fconous taking of per
onsl nrsperty that be- any. In Hnckey
% Emerson "a Comstock 35l) the right of property in a
d ssas expressly recognized Ii was u similar action.
T1s nain, in the Court below proved the value of
the dog be ten fifteen dollars, and had judgment
and the Supreme Court on error affirmed the Judgment
The allowing dogs attacking sheep to be killed was
referred by the Court proof that but for the statute
the right did not exist In Bull VS. Fager (a3 Wen, $50,
which action of trespass for killing dog was
held that though under proper circumstances the killing
OF dog justi6abe needless wanton destruction
of the ANIMAL even to prevent an acknowledged mschei,
would be urljustiabc.
II was also held that the opinions OF Witnesses to
the nature of dog for whose destruction an ACTON was
brought, admissible in evidence. ln Dunlap vs..
Snyder az Barb S. c. r. 56l) which was similar ac-
ton the Supreme Court for the Fourth district did not
question the right to maintain an acton Tor the
improper killing OF dog They reversed the
judgments of the Justice and County Court
among other reasons, because the opinions Of
as 10 the value of the dog received evil
dence thus rejecting upon that point the authority of the
case Of Bull vs.. Flagler In Governs Justice Oath ed)
Djurng personal property, is said, the terms per
onal property used IN the code of procedure, in
rude money, goods chattes, things in action and evil
Of debt and, with the exception OF real estate
verifying in which have valuable interest, in
ancing, among other things, dog In sec. 6SS is
aid, man has such ownership in dog, cat or
ny wild animal which he has acquired property in by
osse~son that he may recover damages Tor any injury
oitn From these authorities ! conclude that II an
be brought to repossess Of dog of which he
been unlawluy deprived, if, in the dog has
killed. action be brought to recover its value
nd IT, the trial lis value is matter OF proof that OF
ny other admitted item Of property, though in
ain extreme the dog may legally forei, is exist
nee 10 stranger agans, the will of its owner, never
hecss that there sufficient OF the characteristics or
attributes OF property about 10 make subject OF pro
lection within the statute defining grand larceny In the
People Maoney Parker's Grim cas- 5s3, was held
for the purposes Of writ Of habeas corpus that dog was
the subee! Of larceny Il Is provided by statute g r.
9Th ed p14, that tax upon dogs shall be annually
levied and collected in all the counties of this State except
the county OF New York and the statute fixes the rate of
tax, and the mode in which il shall be collected
II is also similarly provided that any person
may kill dog which he shall see chasng, worrying
wonnding any sheep unless it is done by the direction
of the owner Of the sheep, or his servant
II Is also provided that Justice Of the Peace may order
the killing OF any dog that shall attack traveller the
highway, or horse attached 10 carriage, upon which
any person Shall be mounted and that any person pos
session of dog who shall suffer about
house for the space of twenty days previous to the
assessment of tax, any injury las specled) done
by the dog shall be deemed its for all the purposes
Of the statute The statute also imposes penalties where
the owner refuses 10 kill dog when legally directed
ordered TO do think these demonstrate that
the Legislature meant to treat dogs property protecting
and controlling Them far the public good or safety
permits or jushes.
In the year 1857 law passed in this State pro-
vidng the incorporation associations for improving
the breed of domestic animals 1t declares that any
corporation formed under it shall have power raise,
import purchase keep breed and sell all kinds of do
nestle animals. Why not dogs within the purview
of this statute Although not ranked among domestic
animals in the time of by Lord Hale, yet the estima-
that they longer considered to be base
that account at least, to be the subject of larceny.
If by domestic is meant belongng TO the house., who
deny this attribute to the dog What animal
more domesticg What appreciates home
more, shows stronger attachments TO it, or if il
strays from IT, l. more certain to return to r In some OF
its species it serves pet companion. In others
it assists and takes part in manly sports and recreations
In others again it is the faithful custodian and guardian
of property. In none, it may be said, is it entirely d
vested Of usefulness. When the benefits it confers are
reflected upon why is there not perfect proprety in i'm
FAyinU nj IN 4 vii
the description of domestic animals under this act o.
1857, il is certainly property the subject of larceny.
If the indictment in the present case should show thai
the dog in question RECLAIMED and made tame
domestic and that the defendant with knowledge
this stole the dog which would to have been
sary at the common law in reference to animals fert
9aaturG e East c. 607), it cannot be sustained in il
present form Under the view entertain this is no
necessary. The indictment shows that the dog tn
property OF the prosecutor that it had certain value
and that 1, feloniousy taken from his possession
Whaever else must be proved the trial be prove
II the Court receives evidence il should not under I'll
indictment drawn, the defendant have his remed
by bill Of exceptions.
Ny Judgment is that the indictment is good as one 70
zen and ndgmsn, must be , re-, for tn
plead 70 the Indictment
TRIALS FOR LARcESIEs.
William Fitzmaurice was charged with obtaining none
under false pretences from George ". Brown, but tn
evidence insufficient to substanta,e the charge
he was acquitted.
Joseph Leshet and Ernst Chanetz alias Coey, nd
or stealing $40 from Leopold yornalenbruck, 504 Greer
witch street, pleaded guilty Of petit larceny. They
ZACH sent to the Penitentiary for three months.
Michael Sheenan, who stole watch worth $l5 from
Mary Brady pleaded guilty to petit larceny and was sen
TO the City prison for sixty days.
Michael Smith and Jones Alley, charged with stealing
coat worth $40, from Alpheus D. Kirk, pleaded guilty
petit larceny.
Mary Callahan, who purloined $40 worth of property
from Sophia Loewenthal, 13s West Seventeenth street
pleaded guilty s,t to an attempt at grand larceny
dollar from Alexander King pleaded guilty TO the charge
Anthony Witt, indicted for stealing the It'll of June
gold watch and chain worth 500 the property of Frede
rick Rohrschneider pleaded guilty TO the offence Al thu
above prisoners were remanded for sentence
Edward Barnes tried for alleged larceny Of $50
but the evidence unreliable and the jury
dered verdict Of not guilty The foreman stated tina
ten of the jurors unanimous in their opinion bu
that the other two jurors-one Of whom q German
and could not understand the evidence and the other
deaf that he could not hear the testmony-were unabl
to give opinion. The District Attorney consented
receive the verdict of the and the Judge reprmande
the two jurors for sitting the case, observing that
that had been important the consequences wou
have been serious