The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1889-08-31
A NOVEL TRIAL.
How q Four-Footed Criminal Was
Brought to Justice.

Some years ago q very novel trial
and execution took place in one Of the
rural New England towns. If not
strictly legal. it was yet conducted ac-
cording to certain forms OF law. The
Judge. lawyers and jury were boys, and
the criminal was a dog.
To term dog criminal may seem
to many readers a contradiction in
terms, or at best whimsical use of the
word. For, of course, to be criminal
implies on the part Of the accused a
knowledge that the act committed is
wrong. and prohibited under penalty.
The legal use of the term, to be sure,
IL not quite so far-reaching. since a
lack of knowledge or information as to
the penalty does not excuse the wrong
doer. But, certainly, to be criminal
implies the possession and use of
rational powers in normal condition.
But shall even attempt to show that
this particular dog was entitled to the
distinction implied in the ordinary use
of the word. At the same time the
reader will do we'll to look to it that he
Ii not misled in forming his own
opinion.
He was large dog. part Newfound-
land, part Mastiff, or Saint Bernard.
or Irish Setter; there is some doubt on
this point. His name was Brown"
The offense of which he was accused
and found guilty was sheep-killing, and
he was shown beyond doubt to be an
old offender. no less than twenty cases
Of ovtcide being laid at his door during
the trial, which was held on a Satur-
day afternoon at small district school
house.
Sheep-killing is considered capital
offense on the part of dogs in rural
communities. Itcan scarcely be classed
as murder, for murder is the unpro-
voked slaughter Of one creature by
another of the same species or variety.
But believe that the boys who tried
and condemned Brown, charged him
with murder. However. this point does
not greatly signify, since it did not
help Browns case.
The trial brought out great many
curious facts. for the two boys who
took the parts of prosecuting attorney
and of counsel for Brown exerted them
selves to their utmost, and there were
not less than twenty Witnesses, pro
and con.
It was shown that Brown had always
been q dog of good reputation in the
Immediate neighborhood where his
master resided; that he was a general
favorite with every one, that he had
performed a number of meritorious ac-
tons, and that he had never been
known to harm so much as lamb on
his masters premises, or on those of
his immediate neighbors.
The scene of his crime was the sheep
pasture of farmer, living three or
four miles distant. That he should
have spared all nearer focks and gone
to this distance from home, to crafty
his laundering for illicit mutton, was
one Of the worst features OF the case
against him, on the score of moral de-
linquency. For it was argued that he
would never have slipped away by
night to such distance had he not
been fully aware that what he did was
wrong and subject to extreme penalty.
Several similar cases were cited to
show that when once dogs become
sheep-killers they wax abnormally fer
tile in tricks to avoid the suspicion of
guilt.
1t was IN evidence that, unlike many
other instances where two or three
dogs band together to kill sheep.
Brown had never been known to take
another dog into his confidence, but
had stolen away from home alone; also.
that having once throttled sheep in
this distant pasture and made a meal.
he kept away from the place for a long
time afterwards, evidently under the
conviction that this was the safer pro-
cedure on his part.
From this piece OF caution and good
Judgment it had resulted that several
innocent dogs had lost their lives. For
the irate farmer in whose pasture
Brown had chiefly committed his
depredations, had repeatedly set traps
and laid poison In the carcasses Of the
slaughtered sheep. which had pur-
posely been left exposed. He counted
on the marauder's return, and hoped
thus to capture him. But Brown had