The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1884-07-18

| circumstances, the value of the dog could
be recovered. AT the English common
law, dogs were not regarded as having in
trinsic value, and they could not be the
subject of larceny "a Blackstone, 1850.
But this is not the present American doc
| trine, for there are now many cases in
| which damages have been awarded for the
unlawful killing of valuable dogs (1O9
Mass, 273 90 ILL.,, 21D. In these cases,
however,, man has generally had hand.
The reported decisions involving the law
of dog fights pure and simple, in which
man has not been present as modifying
| influence, are not numerous. There Is for
tunately one, New York case, In which
the facts were nearly identical with those
above stated, and in that the learned Judge
discourses as follows:
| "f The branch of law applicable TO di-
rect conflicts and collisions between dog
and dog, is entirely new to me, and this
case opens up an entirely new investiga-
| ton. / am constrained to admit total ig-
norance of the code duello among dogs, or
what constitutes just cause OF oifense,
and jusiities resort to arms, or rather to
teeth for redress whether jealousy is a
| just cause of war, or what different de-
grees and kinds of insult or slight, or
what violation of the rules of etiquette en-
| title the injured or offended beast to insist
upon prompt and appropriate satisfaction,
! know not, and am glad to know that
no nice question upon the conduct of the
conflict on the part OF the principal actors,
arises in this case. 1t is not claimed upon
either side, that the struggle was not in all
| respects dog-like and fair. Indeed, j was
not before aware that it was claimed that
| any law, human or divine, moral or cere-
monial, common or statute, undertook to
regulate or control these matters, but sup
| posed that this was one of the few privi-
| leges which this class of animals still re-
| tanned in the domesticated state; that it
was one of their reserved rights, not sur
| rendered when they entered into and be-
came part of the domestic institution, to
settle and avenge in their own way, all in
| dividual wrongs and insults, without re-
gard to what Blackstone or any other
jurist might write, speak, or think, Of the
rights of persons or the rights of things
| have beena firm believer with the poet
in the divine right of dogs to fight and
with him would say: ....
Let dogs delight to bark and bite,
For God hath made them so;
Let bears and lions growl and fight,
For It's their nature to.
++*Whatever may have been the character
and habits of the victorious dog, there is
no evidence that he was the aggressor, or
in the wrong, in this particular fight. The
plaintiffs dog may have provoked the
quarrel, and have caused the fight; and if
so, the owner of the victor dog cannot be
made responsible for the consequences
There is no evidence that the defendants
| dog was dangerous animal, or one unfit
to be kept. The cases cited, in which
dogs have attacked human beings, al
though trespassers, and the owners have
been held liable, are not applicable. 1t is
| one thing for dog to be dangerous to hu-
| man life, and quite another to be unwil-
| ling to have strange dogs upon his masters
| premises. To attack and drive off dogs
| thus suffered to go at large, to the annoy
ancc, if not the detriment and danger of
| the pubic, would be virtue, and that is
all that can be claimed, upon the evidence,
was done in this case. Owners of valua-
| bic dogs should take care of them, proper
| toned to their value, and keep them with
| in their own precincts, or under their own
| eye. 1t is very proper to invest dogs with
some discretion while upon their masters
| premises, in regard to other dogs, while it
| is palpably wrong to allow man to keep
| II dog, which may, or will, under any cir
cumstances, of his own volition, attack a
| human being. If owners of dogs, whether
| valuable or not, suffer them to visit others
of their species, particularly if they go un-
invited, they must be content to have them
| put up with dog fare, and that their recep-
| tion and treatment shall be hospitable or
| inhospitable, according 10 the nature, or
particular mood and temper at the time, of
the dog visited. The courtesies and hos
| pitalties of dog-life, cannot well be regula-
| ted by the judicial tribunals of the land"
(Wiley VS.. Slater, % Barb, 506l.
In Michigan there was statute requir-
ing the owner of every dog to procure a
license for it, and keep it collared, and
making it lawful for any person to kill any
and all dogs going at large, not licensed
and collared according to the provisions
| of the act. While this statute was in force,
a large dog meeting small but valuable
one, and observing 1t not to be properly
collared and licensed according to law,
| proceeded to execute the law upon it by
killing it forthwith. The owner of the
slain dog brought suit against the owner
of the canine eXecutloner, who endeavored
to shield himself under the provisions Of
the statute. But the court said .,..|
~+"A statute under which party is, in SO
| summary manner, TO be deprived of his
| property, by having 1t destroyed should
not be extended by construction. That
| dogs have a value, and are the property of
/ their ha wall 1anin1 OF tbp
present day, whatever may have been the
rule heretofore, And without questioning
the power Of the State to prescribe such
4 regulations as may be deemed necessary
and proper to prevent injury being done
by them, yet we cannot say that where the
| legislature has authorized persons to xii
dogs found running at large contrary tC
the act, the authority thus given to per
sons can, by construction, be so enlarged
as to embrace animals also.++" GA Mich.
283). N NNL aE
The foregoing quotations indicate in
general way, the state Of the law upon THU
subject. 1t is safe to say, that in the cas-,
of our inquirer, it Is doubtful whether
there could be a recovery of damages The
dog at the time of its injury was reall,
a trespasser. 1t was at least out of it
masters control, on an expedition of it
own; and II its master allowed it thus L
go about, he must take the consequence
of such dog-fghts as it may engage in. |
seems, too, that it matters not whether /
is, or is not the aggressor in such fights
A dog has its right to drive other dogs OF
from its masters premises, and If in S
doing it Injuries them, there is no liabilit
on the part of the master. 1t would b
different il the master himself injured tn
prowling dogs. A man has no right I
kill dog simply because he finds it o
his premises, even though he suspects
has been doing mischief $50 Ill.,, 2l1). ]
the dog is known to be ferocious an
dangerous one, and is permitted to run
large by Its owner, or escapes through ne.
ligent keeping, its owner having know
edge or notice of its vicious disposition
then any person is justified in killing
13 Johns, S1D. So, also, one may kill
dog that has been bitten by mad dog
that for any other reason is dangerous
human life (l7 Barb, 561), but this is Il
limit Of the right. One cannot set tran