Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1862-01-24
"A AGRICULTURAL.
Dogs AMI Dog Laws Sheep Husband

made 10 present, under soiHe peculiar r'f'
cumstanses, while we cannot even 10 our
selves deny The eoriectsess Of Tho likeness.
1t makes wonderful difference how wc
look At per.on Or thing, as to the impress
sion we receive. There are swo sides IL,
least 10 all persons and 10 all gu siions, rs
was well Illustrated by the boy who was
directed by his father to ride a horse IN or
der to show him. Father asked tie boy
privately, shall ride him to Jpy or to
saH?7
These remarks are peculiarly applicable
TO dogs Here is picture from one Of the
best Of English writer's. Behold what an
admirable beast is the dog " 1t is with
pleasarable feelings that we take up our
pen for the purpose of illustrating the natu-
raj history Of an animal 50 faithful, so yalua-
bic, so much to be priced, as the noble dog
An animal which God seems 10 have form
ed expressly for mans ~olace and assistance,
10 be to him true and constant friend faith
full through troubles and difficulties, and
probably the only animal that at the fall"
swervcd not from his allegiance, but con-
tinucd faithful 10 his master even in bis
disgrace"
SHEEP KILLED BY Docs.
Now let us Change the position Of this
remarkable animal, and take a maiter-of-
tfacl-sketch Of him. In the State Of OLio,
sas is shown by official reports, in the year
1858, no less than G0,53G sheep were kill
ed, and Sc, AL injured by dogs, making the
whole damage to sheep in that State in one
year, at least $146,748! We have no means
Of ascertaning the whole amount of this
kind of injury throughout the country, but
we are told by the Secretary Of The Mas
sachusetts Board Of Agriculture, in Lis report
for 1860, that among the reasons for the re-
duction Of the number Of sheep in that
Commonwealth, from 37s,226 in 1910, to
only l13,lll in 1860, was the destruction
of sheep py dogs, BY which farmers were
deferred from attempting 10 keep them. In
1916, tie number Of pounds Of WOOL grown
in Massachusetts was l,0lG, 230: in 1875,
4l0, 15G--a loss Of over COOS pounds.
The value Of sheep and wool together il
1916 was s923.429, while in 1896 it was
Si64,889, showing depreciation in ten
years Of nearely half million Of dollars.
No wonder that such dminution of prod
ucts SO important, prompted the Legislature
of Massachusetts 10 adopt efficient means to
remove all obstacles in the way of sheep
husbandry. We shall give in this article,
a synopsis Of the Massachusetts, Act for the
protection Of domestic animals from dogs.
1t may be well for US, however, for The BEN
eft of those who reside in States where
there are no statute regulations, first to give
some idea Of their rights at common law,
which is the law in all our States, where it
has not been changed by statute, except
Louisiana. That State being formerly
possessed by the French, has its jurispru-
dence based on the civil law derived from
France, and not like the rest, on the English
or conamoa law.
COMMON LAW AS TO Docs.
Where there are no statute provisions,
there it may be stated in general, that The
owner of dog is not liable for the injury
he may do to man or beast, unless he knew
that the dog was accustomed TO do such in
jury. The common law seemed 10 treat
dogs as domestic animals, and 10 presume
them harmless, until they were proved to
be otherwise. Thus if a man keeps horse
which he knows to lie vicious, and to be in
the habit Of biting and kicking, and he ride
him into a crowd, The owner would be LA
BILE to pay for all damage done by the horse.
The same is true Of bull, or even a COW,
and the same doctrine applies to dogs. If
therefore, dog. in State where the stat.
ute does not impose add 'tional liability
takes a fancy, as dogs viii do, to make NUT
ton of score or two of ncighbors fine
Aerinoes or Oxford Downs, the owner hal
no redress whatever, il this is the dogs frs
offence. This was hard law for sheer
growers and several sharply Irrigated case
arose, in which the lawyers tried their wit
at the expense Of their clients. One cas-
which is reported was decided about TWEEN
ty years ago, which afforded considerable,
amusement to the members Of the bar. j
appeared that man owned a very small
dog, which had on@e or twice bitten a snee,
or two, and that dog in company with an
other, a very large and savage dog. ha
nearly destroyed a valuable flock Of sheer
The owner of tie sheep brodeh; an actio
against the owner Of the little dog, the own
er Of the biz dog bel s unknown, aud til
question was, whether the Owner Of The III
lie dog was liable to Fay for all the damag
done by both dogs or only sech proportion
as his little dog had done. On one side
was insisted, thai as the defendant kept
dog which he knew was sheep-kiler. AM
his dog took a large one with him to th
hunt. the little dog was at the bottom Of IL
mischief, and besides nobody could tell hoy
4 I