The examiner., 1882-02-11
ANIMALS AND THE LAW,

Dogs, C1ta. EuiIs md Bees that Have Bee, .-. Brought Before the Courts Here and i,
 Europe.
 Dogs and cats and other enimal figure very extensively in the loga literature of Anglo-Saxon countries though they are no longer cited to the bal Tn their proper persons and put on tria as tbey were in medise val days. Anl il must be said that, like the nobler an
 malls, men and women, they havo al times to complain of contradictory de cisions. Thus an English jury refused to give damages 10 man who was an. noyed by the yelping and barking oi his neighbours canine pets, but in America it has been decided that one may lawfully kill another persons dog if it is in the habit of haunting his house and barking and bowling by day and night to the disturbance of his family, if he cannot otherwise prevent tue animal from annoying hin. Plato and the Roman legislators held that. as it was in the nature of dogs to do mischief when unrestrained, their owner was under such circum- stances liable for damage done by them, but from very eally timo the English common law has assumed that
 
 be shown that he has been aware of tho animals particular tendency to such mischievous acts. The presumption that the animal is tame was carried in Great Britain to the extent of relic 7ing the owner from responsibility in Q sheep-kiHing case where it was held that every do1 wns entitled to at 1east one worry, Every dog has his bite as well as his day. In the case of Rolfe last year an English jury applied the sarne theory to the bull. MT. Roltes bull was alleged to have charged two women and Knocked them into a ditch The husband of one of them brought his action, and it became necessary for him to show that MT. Rolfe knew his bull to be savage. Testimony. to the opposite effect was forthcoming in the shape of statement that the beast was accustomed to graze on & cricket ground, and that he rather liked being hit by crioket-ba1l than otherwise. To the contrary effect there was posi- lively no evidence except an unlucky remark attributed to the defend ant. MT. Banks, the plaintiff, swore that when he called on MT. Rolfe the next morning to complain, the latter observed: That's my old bull again" The judge held that the use of the word "again" precluded him from taking the case out Of the hands of the jury. This really seemed hard on MT. Rolfe. For if he had simply said, ''That's my old bull," he might have seemed to be expressing brutal sym pathy with it's ferocious exploit. It is fair to add. however, that he denied having said anything of the sort, and that the jury, not being satisfied that he knew his bull was accustomed to assault mankind, gave him verdict. Provocation, of course, reduces the dogs offense, though the authorities are not in accord as to the precise amount of provocation Q dog must stand. In Illinois if he is kicked and bites back he is within his rights. Be- tween keeping 8 ferocious dog and keeping a pet lion, as lady does up in Boston, or tiger, there is distinction; for in the case of the latter animal. knowl- edge of it's ferocity will be presumed from its nature. A point in dog law was raised in Cincinnati recently, when the bloodhounds and donkeys employed by a manager in representing "Uncle Tom's Cabin 9 were seized for debt as his personal property, and in October U kitten came up under peculiar circum- claimed it and the other party refused to deliver it. The plaintiff claimed ownership from the mother cat being his property, while the defendant claimed that the kitten was born on his premises and also that only qualified t1tle can be had in an animal belonging to class known as semi to which class the cat belonged. There fore the right of property was not ab- solute. A cat is the property of per- son only so long as 1t remains per manently under his care and control, The progeny of cat is not recognized by law as the property of the owner of its parents. After mature delibera- tion by the jury verdict was returned of "No cause for action.' In the Warwick county court, in England, re gently, case was heard where a shop keeper sued the owner of flock O sheep for the cost of his shop window The sheep were being driven along the street, when the leader took flying leap through the glass, six others fol lowing it with the implicit faith charac- teristic of the ovine kind The defense was that tbere was no negligence, but the judge held that the point did not arise. The sheep became trespassers the moment they left the roadway, and defendant was held responsible for all the damage they subsequently caused.
 At Paris last summer the judicia tribunals gave judgment against an urban bee keeper, who, with an eye to business, established an extensive apiary right alongside of sugar refinery, with the natural result that his bees