The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-06-18
The Legal status Of Dogs.

In the eighty-sixth volume OF New l0is
Reports, Just published, is q decision OF the
Court Of Appeals upon the question whether
dogs are personal property under the laws OF
this State so as to be the subject Of larceny.
At common law the theft of a dog was not
punishable. GAS to those animals" says
BLACKSTONE, (Which do not serve for food,
and which, therefore. the law holds to have
no intrinsic value, as dogs OF oil sorts, and
other creatures kept for whim and pleasure,
though man may have base property
therein, and maintain civil action for the
loss of them, yet they are not OF such esti-
nation as that the crime OF stealing them
amounts to larceny" And COKE suggests
an additional reason for the common law rule
in the reluctance to put human being to
death for stealing dog when larceny was q
capital offence.
The opinion of the Court OF Appeals Is
written by Judge EARL, who first disputes
the soundness of the reasoning on which the
rule of the common law is based. when we
call to mind the small spaniel that saved the
life Of WILLIAM Of Orange he says, land
thus probably changed the current Of mod
ern history, and the faithful st. Demands
which after q storm has swept over the crest
and sides of the Alps start out in search OF
lost travellers, the claim that the nature of q
dog Is essentially base, and that he should be
left a prey to every vagabond that chooses to
steal him, will not now receive ready assent"
And Judge EARL docs not see why the old
lawgvers should have been less willing to
execute q man for stealing dog than for
stealing falcon.
1t seems doubtful however, whether the
common law rule that a dog could not be the
subject OF larceny ever prevailed in this
State, though recognized in Ohio, North Car
olina, and Alabama, and probably In other
States. There are statutes expressly pre-
scribing the punishment for dog stealing in
some of the States. Wehave no such statute
in New York, but our laws provide that
every person convicted OF stealing the
personal property OF another OF the
value Of S25 or under shall be adj
judged guilty Of petit larceny, and per-
sonal property Is defined as goods, chattels
Effects evidences Of rights OF action" and
certain specified sorts of written instruments.
The Court OF Appeals think that this defini-
tion comprehends dogs. The language of the
| Commissioners who prepared the Revised
Statutes. in which it is contained indicates
that it was their intention to make the law
against larceny protect anything which can
be stolen and which is OF value to the owner.
| The fact that system for the taxation Of
| dogs was enacted at the same time leads
| Judge EARL to remark that tho Legislature
| could hardly have intended to treat dogs as
property to be taxed, yet not as property TO
be protected against thieves.
| Accordingly, the Court OF Appeals held
that prisoner who had stolen dog worth
less than s25 was properly convicted of the
| crime of petit larceny.
This was the conclusion Of oil the men,
bers of the court but one. Chief Judge
FoLGER dssented, on the ground that the
statutory definition does not include dogs,
and that the old common law rule which did
not recognize those animals as subjects OF
larceny must be regarded as still in force.
| There is something to be said in favor OF this
view. Judges may go too far in their desire
| to conform the law to common sense The
power to make new law because the old is
not precisely satisfactory belongs to the
| legislative department OF the Government,
not to the judicial branch; and it was evil
IDENTIFY feeling that the Court was trying to
legislate where it ought simply TO declare
the law which caused Chief Judge FoLGER
TO dissent from the opinion OF his brethren
in this interesting case.
The decision settles the question at issue
however, and no man may now steal dog
in the State of New York with impunity.