Sacramento daily record-union., 1889-09-19
SHEEP DOGS.
BUT NOT THE KIND THAT SHEPHERDS
HAVE USE FOR.
The Supreme Court Reverses the Decision
in the Johnson-McConnen
Dog Case.

Deputy Clerk Williams of the Supreme
Court in this city, filed the following opin-
ion yesterday:
T. w. Johnson (appellant VS.. Thad. Nc
Connell-This is Sacramento case, in
which action was brought by the appellant
against the respondent to recover the value
of three dogs alleged to have been mallci-
ously killed by the latter. The respondent
admitted the killing, but justified it on the
ground that the dogs were at the time in
the act of worrying sheep belonging to his
mother, and in his charge. The Court be-
low found the following state of facts:
'The defendant, in the employment of
his mother, Mrs. Ellen NJ. Wilson, was car
ing for and attending to the sheep upon the
ranch in Sacramento county. A portion of
the sheep, consisting of band of about
800 ewes, at the time heavy with lamb,
were in another field by themselves,
receiving more attention than the rest.
On the date named in the COM
plant, the defendant noticed the ewes
running about the field followed by three
or four dogs. which seemed to be chasing
them. Thinking the sheep in danger, he
Immediately went to the house, and pro-
curing a repeating rifle returned to the
field. He found the ewes still running
about, greatly agitated, and pursued by the
four dogs. Defendant Immediately started
after the dogs, when the latter, seeing him
enter the field, turned and ran. when de.
fendant pursued and shot three of them in
quick succession; and as soon as he could
get in range of them, but not until they
had got something like quarter to halt
mile from where the defendant first started
after them. None of the dogs were on the
land or premises of the plaintiff when
killed. The defendant had never seen the
dogs and did not know to whom they be-
longed. He killed them because he be-
lieyed that it was the only effectual
method of preventing them from returning
and ipJuring the sheep, and not with any
malicious or wrongful intent or feeling.
The effect of the chasing of the sheep was
to greatly worry and injure them, which
was known to the defendant when he pur-
sued and killed the dogs. They were in
fact injured and worried thereby. The
plaintiff was the owner of the dogs, and
they had never been known to moIest
sheep before this. They were valuable
hunting dogs, trained and educated. and
were worth 1925.
On these hndlngs the Court concluded in
favor of the defendant, and rendered iudg-
ment accordingly.
The plaintiff moved for a new trial,
which was denied, and he appeals.
The Supreme CoGrt reverses the iudg-
ment and says that ranchers have no right,
after the CANNES have left their premises,
to kill dogs that have been Worrying their
sheep. The defendant in this case chased
the dogs off his premises and then shot
them. The opinion was written by Justice
Works, Justices Sharpstein, Patterson and
Fox concurring. Justices Mcfarland,
Beatty and Thornton filed a dissenting
opinion in which the former says:
He was not compelled to wait until the
dogs had actually seized the sheep to see if
they were only in playful exercise of an
educated trait of character, or if the taste
of blood would have aroused barbarous
instinct derived from their wolfish ances-
tors, which would have overcome the disci-
pline of their semi. civilization The rule
that mans intentions must be gathered
from his conduct applies still more forcibly
to dogs, and if a dog be found chasing
sheep in a field of his neighbor the COM
mon judgment of mankind is that his in
tent is bad