The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1885-06-12
A 500 DOG CASE.
ONE FARMER SUES ANOTHER FOR KILL
ING HIS noe
A Dog Suspected Of laundering After
Mutton, or barking, HOwIing Dog
May Lawfully be Killed.

An interesting case was tried before Justice
Lyle in Bel Air, last Wednesday. 1t was that of
James A. Webster VS.. James j. Wilson. for dam
ages claimed by Webster for the killing of his
dog by Wilson, last August. Much interest was
felt in the neighborhood of Pylesville, where the
small to hold the crowd, the trial was held in the
court room.
Hon Stevenson Archer appeared for the plain
titf, and the defendant was represented by
Messrs VIM. Young and Herman Stump.
Mr.: Webster, the owner of the dog, testified
Mr.. Wilson told him he had shot dog, which
proved to be Mr.. Webster's. Mr.. Wilson express
ed his regrets and said he did not know it was Mr..
Webster S dog The animal was shepherd dog,
raised by Mr.. Webster from puppyhood, and was
worth to him. he said, as much as a boy TO whom
he would have to pay So month. The dog would
at command go after strange cattle and drive them
out and was worth 800, if ever dog was. On the
night he, was shot, at quarter after twelve
fighting in his yard. The dog went in the direc-
ton of Mr.. Wilson'S which was a mile and three
quarters distant, and he saw him no more alive.
Michael w. Webster testified that he had given
the dog when it was puppy TO his father; that
i was Well,trained dog, and If his he would not
TO the house and would run stray cattle Off his
fathers place.
Ex- County Commissioner Michael whiteford
and his son John s. Whiteford both testified that
they had seen the dog sent to drive strange cows
out of Mr. Webster's fields.
Mr.. Jas j. Wilson in his defence testified that
he had been much annoyed by dogs and had fire.
quently been Obliged TO go out and drive dogs
away from his sheep. On the night spoken of, he
was aroused at half past ten o'clock by hearing
the sheep bells and going down saw a black dog
at which he fired but missed it Several hours
afterwards the sheep-bels again awoke him and
through the fence into the orchard, in the direc.
ton OF his sheep, which were about 100 yards
from the dog. Firing at the dog he killed it, but
did not know whose 1t was until Mr.. Webster
identified 1t as his.
Samuel Davis testified that dog answering to
the description of Mr.. webster's dog had annoy.
ed him very much, but he had not been troubled
since Webster's dog was killed.
Nathan Pyle testified that he had also been an
noyed by similar dog, and tried to shoot it but
the gun would not go Off. Such dogs are worth
nothing and cost the price of load of powder
and shot to kill.
James Wayne, who lived at Mr.. Wilson's. testi.
fed that Mr.. Wilson had had sheep killed by dogs
Just before. About month before Mr. Webster's
dog was killed he saw it near Mr.. Pyles, at three
O'Clock in the morning.
VIM. Davis had also been annoyed by Il dog
like Mr.. Webster's and on the night the dog wal
killed he passed Mr., Wilson's place and saw his
sheep running about as If frightened.
Hall Wilson and Joseph Burns also testified
the former that Mr. Webster said his brother Jot
had been out after dogs the same night, and Il {
latter that Joe Webster had i'd the dog ought tc
be killed.
The case was argued at length by Messrs
Young and Stump for the defendant, who quoted
from Article 81. section 10 of the Code as follows
III any dog or dogs shall be detected in killing
in1uring or pursuing any sheep, the owner OF
said sheep shall have full power and right TO XIII
said dog dogs, unless said dog or dogs shall have
first escaped to his. her or their owners pre-.
misses"
They also cited Hlliard on the law of torts where
1t is laid down that the inhabitant OF DWELL
ing house may lawfully kill the dog of another
where such dog is in the habit of haunting his
house, and by barking and bowling, by day and
by night, disturbs the peace and quiet of his fam
illy. If the dog cannot he otherwise prevented
from annoying him ;although wanton destruc-
ton of the animal is not justi6able."
Mr., stump said that instead Of being prosecuted
Mr.. Wilson deserved the thanks of the oommuni--
ty for having rid it of an annoyance, by killing
Mr.. Wcbster's dog.
MIR. Archer, for the plaintiff, argued that both
the common and the statute law recognized prop
erty. in dogs, and while it is true that dog
can be killed when disturbing the peace of the
family by barking or bowling, it can not be killed
wantonIy. The killing by Mr.. Wilson of Mr..
Websters dog, was wanton act the dog not
being near the sheep aud there being no proof
that il had ever disturbed Mr.. wilson's sheep.
Mr.. Webster had shown that the dog was valuable
to him and II IL was all he owned in the world SO
much the greater reason that he should be paid
for its loss.
Justice Lyle gavc judgment in favor of Mr..
Wilson