Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1879-08-13
The Hog Law.

| VI u uOS III law Is
question that is imperfect,y under.
stood, and because of this imperfect
understanding great disputes and
troubles oftimes arise among NEIGH.
oors. A case that was brought be-
fore Judge Junkin has resulted in
fxlnS the standing Of the hog to such
a degree that every one who reads
the decision of the Court can plainly
understand it. The lawyers in the
case before the Court we're, Stone
for plaintiff, Atkinson for defendant
Ihe decision, rs rendered ty Judge
Junkin, reads as follows:
SUSAN MccrRpr ! innt Common Plea,
rs. }No. l16, Sep. T. III.
rHsoboar THOMPSON. Motion rrisl. ,G. a Ne"
rtR cURus--Defendant was saed before
justice Lukens in technical trcspass for
seizing the plaintiffs Sow, and inserting a
ring in her nose, from which the plaintiff
alleged the hog had died. This SOW WAS
found wandering upon the land of the de.
fendant, without yoke on her neck. and
without ring in her nose. Undoubtedly
II Mrs. McCurdy permitted this sow 20 run
at large unyOSed aud without a ring in her
nose she WAS liable to be shot down, or
taken alive by the owner of any premise,
where She might be found under the Act of
lfU5. Mr.. Thompson did not wish to de-
prive Tie plaintiff of her pork, but on the
contrary, undertook TO do what the plain
tin should have done, namely, ring the hog
himself, which be did T; but jury has found
that in Consequence OF this ringing the SOW
died, and have valued her at six CENTS
Now the defendant says as lie had a right TO
kill the hog ont and ont tand there is no
doubt of this), for tiori could he do tie
thing he did, ring her, even thoiigh she died
from the effects He says, things ,hat are
equal to the same thing, aik equal to each
other, and this is true. lie 6o-tents. thai
under the Act Of l705 the owner Of the
land where unyekci and unringed hogs are
trespasSing may do one of two things, C)
he may pen up the animals alive, and pto-
ceed TO have them appraised, pay in one-
half their value, and thus become owner of
the whole; or (2) he may shoot or kill the
hogs, and say no more about it. For IIs
years this act was in force without receiving
judicial construction, and then arose the
case Of the Commonw ealth at the relation
of John Wilson vs.. Fourteen Hogs, IL S. /
Il R. 391. But in that case the hogs were
not killed, but seized alive; SO that for la
years there has been no decision, as to
whether when the hog is killed out and out,
the party doing so, must proceed to have an
made as IN the case of live /
capture
The expression OF the statute is, that the |
owner of the premises may ' kill and take, |
and drive and carry away, or cause them TO |
be killed, taken, driven or carried awIy
and being SO taken and carried away, the /
said takers shall forthwith acquaInta a justice /
Of the peace thereof" and then follows the 1
&c. Now, one Of two things !
is to be done, to wit: Kill and take" or |
I'drivc and carry away" The statute uses |
''an3' where .'oT' was manifestly intend
ed; So that whether the owner of the prem
ises kill ard take, or drive and carry away, |
he must proceed to inform The justice, and /
cause an appraisement TO 5e made, whereby I
in either event, one-half the value of the !
forfeited swine will be returned to the owner.
This is a reasonable construction, and con-
sidering the Summary character of the pro-
altogether necessary.
The hog is an animal of incalculable value /
10 a majority OF the families of this com
rnonEea';h, entering largely into the meat
iiet of millions, aud iFe nast be astute % .
save his life from indiscrin.ira:e assault.
There is no poetry in his life 70 be sure,
tut much TO cheer many households.
Indeed the Supfeme Judges in the Com
VS.. The Fourteen Hogs, were
not without some app-ehen>ions that the
Act of lTO5 was inconsistent with the Con-
stitutiOA afterwards adopted, in this, that
he trial was too SUMMARY and without that
has taught Us is essential 70 personal libcr-
"; and hence they held that a forfeiture,
Under the act, would be sustained only
where the requirements of the Act were
-igidly pursued.
Had Mr.. Thompson killed Mrs. McCur-
iy's sew, We think he was bound to pro-
iced all the same as though he had penned
ler up; the ringing of the animal was not
the equivalent of either mode of capture,
but an act unwarranted by the statute.
The remaining question is, whether the
plaintiff under the verdict for sig cents can
recover more ccsts ;han damages, under the
proviso in the Act of 22d March, 1914, (B.
?. p. S67), and the Act of 9Th April, 1888,
which makes the costs on appeals abide the
event of the suit. But this point is ruled
in King VS.. Boyles, Casey, 42i; here a
plaintiff in trespass before justice recov-
ID s35 5; the defendant appealed, a refer
ence TO arbtratnrs, who reported ''no cause
for action - and from this plaintiff appeal
ed, and recovered q verdict of ten cents
damages Held that he was entitled to fell
costs.
In the case before Us the plaintiff reco:-
cred sl7, before the justice, and defendant !
appealed, and the verdict was six cents for
Ihc plaintiff, which carries full costs
And now, 5Cth July, 1879, the motion for
l new trial is oyer-ru.ed, and the plaintiff /
to enter Judgment on the verdict
v ith full costs of suit.
BY THE COURT.
How " child-like and bland " the Demo-
trat and Register appeared last week, when
it published Eepublican Primary Election
Ticket in full excepting the name of ono cf /
he candidates. "Oh lah met" It's ex- /
cIamation was like that of innocence !
abroad, :" when the ticket with one udme OF