Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1869-12-30


term of the Rockbridge court, a Govel but
somewhat interesting suit was tried. It's per
hans. the only case of the kind thai has eSer (
been instituted or tried in Virgins.
Frederick Mohlar instituted an action oi t"''- /
mass against William Davis, to recover damages
tnr Killing doq. The defendant pleaded
Nat G,ilty and also deniurred, but the dc |
murrer was overrulcd by the court. Jury
having been empanellcd the case Yves regularly
proceeded with. ~
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff
showed that he had kept pack OF hounds ior
several years, and that he was found oil, anu 10
lulged frequently 10, the sport Of deer driving
in the pastures, near the residence oil The de!eh
dant; that this dog was. perhaps tie u most
valuable OF his SPECIES in the county OF ltoeE-
bridge 1t was also proved that on the DAY
the dog was killed he had run the deer dis
lance OF twenty five miles, and was within
short distance of it when the deer was shot
Shortly after the deer was killed, at the stand
on the farm of the defendant, he and his son
came up, and after spending same fifteen or
twenty minutes the defendant was observed to
withdraw bis hand from his pantaloons pocket
and cast something on the direction of the dog;
which was laying in the grass when he and
his son Immediately left. The witness suSpec.
ting, from his general reputation, that he had
| thrown something to the dog that would poison
him, Immediately went to see ii he could lind it,
but when he reached the dog nc was licking
his chops as if he had eaten somthlns In
very lew minutes thereafter the dog had Sevc
raj commissions, and In about twenty minutes NJ,
ter defendant lett he died. Inc dog was wen
M o the time the defendant left the ground.
1t was further proved that tho defendant had
had the reputation for twenty years or more III
his neiphborhood, of being dog killer.
The defendant was introduced rs witness IN
his own behalf, aud denied that he had given
poison to the dog lie admmited that some
twenty wears or more ago he had acquired the
reputation of being dog killer, and that 1t
had continued 10 be his reputation ever since
| Other witnesses were introduced, who prov
ed that the defendant had been connected
with Christian church for several years and
that his general reputation Tor truth and homes
ty was good. All, however, proved that his
general reputation as 4 dog killer was equally
we'll. established in his neighborhood.
The ease was earnestly and deliberately ar
gucd by OK Governor Letcher Tor the plaintiff
and by David f. Moore for the defendant.
TO sustain the right Of action, the plaintiff \
council relied on 1Hdclin'S case 6 Leigh IN
which it was held that the act of 1922, chap,
ter "a, section |. did not authorize criminal
prosecution for killing dogs belonging to
another. There were then on the bench mae
teen of the twenty judges that composed that
court, all of them of great emineuce and learn
ing. Twelve of them concurred IN the DECISION
and the remaining seven dissented. lhere
seems to have been some difference among the
Judges composing the majority upon ques
ton which was mooted in the case, but they
all concurrcd in the opinion that criminal
prosecution cannot be sustained Ter the de-
/ To- tby m Ia 10 said
Leigh, Judge, in pronouncng the opinion Of
the majority Of the court, "the property III
dogs and other inferior animals, Is not such AZ
that larceny can he committed 10y stealing
them. though the pOsSessor has 4 base properly
in them, and may maintain ctrH acton tof
in;uy;es done 10 Mem." This is the doctrine
laid down in Maclin's case by the General
Court of our State, and this docrIuc was al
frmed by the Court OF Appeals, in 1867, IN
Darts case. 9th Grattan's Rep Moncure,
Judge, in that case says but | think the
rule stare decisis now applies and that -Hactia $
case governs this That decision was made
not only by great, judges. but by the highest
Court of Appeals in criminal eases ut that
time in the State It is therefore OF binding
authority" Joynes, Judge, in the same case,
| page ga, says 1t is conceded on all hands
that an action OF trespass may be maintained
| for killing dog.
The defendants Counsel insisted that dogs
we're not property in the proper sense OF the
term that so far as he knew or had ever heard,
dogs had never been appraised or sold as part
of decedent's estate. He presented this point
| in various ingenious modes, and with much
| force and ability lie relied strongly upon the
| good character of the defendant to show that
| It was hardly probable hat a man Of as good
character as he had established would have
sworn falsely, if he had given the poison to
| the dog The defence wis marked BY decided
ability and all that ingenuity Tor which Capt.
| Moore is so distinguished.
The Jury returned verdict for the Plaintiff
| for hcclre dollars damages and coasts of suit.
The law is therefore settled in Virginia, that
whosoever kills his nciehbor' dog subjects
himself to an action Of trcspass, in which such
damages may be assessed as to the Jury shall!
seem fair and Just.