The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1871-08-25
VOLUME II.
KILLING DOGS ACCORDING 10 LAW.

/
i Three important cases, consolidated
and heard upon given state Of facts,
were decided recently by the Supreme
Court of Massachusetts,. See Vol. 100
page 436. Mass. Reports.
The following is the statement of the
case each of the declarations in these
actions contained two counts, one In
the nature of trover for q dog and dog
collar, and the other of trespass for
breaking and entering close and TAX
ing away q dog and dog collar, and kill
ing the dog"
The defense was that the defendant
was q constable of Grafton; that, az
such, he had received 3 warrant from
the selectmen of that town requiring
him to kill all dogs not duly licensed
and collared, according to the provis-
ions Of statute of 1867. Chap. 100; that
the acts complained of were done
under that statute, and that the dogs
killed were not duly licensed and COL
Jared.
The agreed facts show that the de-
fendent entered the close OF each of the
plaintiffs +; that in Blair's case he did not
enter the house, nor touch the dog I'M
til after he had shot it, when he carried
IL back to the place within the close,
where he had first found 1t. In Hutch
inson's case he reached his hand into
the open shed in which the dog was
tied, led the dog out by the rope at
tached to its collar and killed It. In
Smiths case he entered the house
through the open door, unopposed, and
followed by the dog; exhibited his
warrant and then took the dog from the
house to the yard, and there killed It.
Each of the dogs had on, collar at the
time of the killing, and the bodies Of
each, with the collar still on, were left
within the close when shot"
For the plaintiffs, 1t was insisted, that
''the warrant under which the defend
ant justifies, not being founded on oath,
nor containing any special designation
of the objects of seizure, or the owners
thereof, and directing the seizure or de-
struction of property without previous
judicial condemnation, was contrary to
the declaration of rights, and undertook
to deprive citizens of property other
wise than by the judgment of their
peers or the law of the land. The tax
ing and use of the collars, as shown by
the facts, were a conversion. The en-
tering and killing of the dogs in the
close (the owners premises) was tres
pass"
The following is, rer6atun, the sylla-
bus of the court:
"The regulation of the keeping of
DOGS, and the authorization of their.
summary destruction when prescribed
regulations are not complied with, are
within the police power of the legisla-
ture. ...
When necessary to insure the public
safety, the legislature may, under the
police power vested in it, authorize
municipal authorities to summarily de-
stroy property without legal process or
previous notice to the owner.
An officer having a warrant from the
proper authorities directing him to kill
all dogs not '1icensed and collared," as
required by statute, which statute pro-
vides that such dogs may be killed
whenever and wherever found" has q
right peaceabIy to- enter for that purs-
pose, without permission upon the close
of the owner or keeper of such dog,
and there kill it.
An officer who, under authority of
law, kills dog within the owners
close, and then leaves the body with
the collar still on, is not liable for a
conversion of the collar"
The above decision emanates from one
of the most learned of our supreme
courts, and is to the point. That no
doubts be entertained as to its applica-
ton here, we refer to subdivision 20,
ofSec. 80, Act 3, of Chap. 19. General
Statutes of 1868, page 1853.
"The cities coming under the provis-
ions of this act, in their corporate ca
paeities, arc authorized and empowered
to enact ordinances for the following
purposes To regulate. the running at
large Of cattle, hogs, horses, mules,
sheep, goats, dogs, and other animals,
and TO cause such as may be running at
large to be impounded and sold to dis
charge the costs and penalties provided
for the violation of such prohibition,
and the expense of impounding and
keeping the same, and of such sale; to
regulate and provide for taxing the
owners and harbOrers of dogs, and to
destroy dogs found at large contrary to
any ordinance regulating the same"