The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-09-12
FINE POINTS At ISSUE.
A New Jersey Recorder Attempts TO
Define the Legal Status Of
Rooster.
Decision to tho Effect That Chanti-
cleer 10 not Legally an
Animal.
Then IL He n Vegetable Before tho Law OF
= Mineral? Asks Ono Deeply
Interested.

In a recent number of the P~hiladelphi
Medical News ia a remarkable legal deoisio,
Jersey, in a health board prosecution, say
Wm. G. Eggleston in the Chicago Herald
The decision is one that involves not onl
the peace and sleep of millions OF people
but also compromises the dignity Of tn
American rooster by depriving him of al
inalisnable right as we'll, by dragging hin
into the New Jersey appellate court.
'.The complains was in reference to Ger
tain noisy growing roosters, alleged to be
detriment to the health of a ~neighborhoot
by reason of the production of insomnia.
ground Of complaint" says the News
Common to tho experience of nearly al
boards of health"
After listening to the counsel on eact
side the recorder decided against the board
of health on the ground that "a rooster is
not an animal in a legal sense" The New
Jersey state board Of health will appeal the
case.
"a rooster is not IN animal in a legal
sense?" Has the soul Of Wouter Won Twiller
been metamorphosed and transmigrated in
to the recorder Of Hudson county. New
Jersey? Ia q rooster a vegetable in n legal
sense, or is he a mineral? In various board
ing houses I have met and been conquered
by ROSTERS that had all the characteristic
of geological formations; not exactly trilo-
bites, but try.to- bites. The recorder did
not say that a rooster is not an animal;
he left a loophole by saying that
a rooster is not an animal Tin a legal
sense" But in a legal sense, according to
Rouvier's Law Dictionary. an animal is
any animate being which is not human, en-
dowed with voluntary motion" A rooster
is an animate being; it is not human; it is
strongly endowed with voluntary motion.
Perhaps the recorder meant to say that n
rooster is not an animal in a New Jersey
statutory senses; but he didn't say that. Not
only is a rooster an animal in a legal sense,
but there are plenty OF decisions that would
have warranted tho Hudson county record
or in deciding for the plaintiff. On condi-
ton that the recorder will promise not to
fine me for contempt of court l will give
what should have been his decision after he
h had stated the case:
1.-The owner of a mischievous animal,
ny AthA w " y AZ AShPoAoAohS "AcA
he permits him to go at large for the dam
e. age he may do; 2 Esp, 4s2; 4Camp, 1893; l
Stark, 285; l Holt, 617; 2 Stra., 1884; l Lid.
Raym., no; 105 Mass. II; 35 Ind, 179; Is
Ill. 141; 80 Wis. 800" etc.
There need be no legal bubble as to tho
use of the pronoun him. a rooster is a
l'him.' Nor does the court sustain the OBJ
Y lection raised by the counsel for the de-
PENDANTS that a noisy Growing rooster is
not necessarily mischievous, for anything
that is harmful, troublesome, ve1atious OF
ANNOYING is mischievous, and surely a roos-
ter capable of causing insomnia by
the exercise of his musical faculty. is
. chievous. This court cannot agree
with the learned counsel for the defendants
in claiming that, while a noisy, Growing
rooster may be mischievous, he cannot be
brought under the above ruling unless his
owners permitted him to DO at large and
noisy off of his own premises. While it is
true that the ROSTERS were not at large in
: propria persona, yet the mischievous, sven
though immaterial and imponderable parts
Of the roosters-their voices-were clearly
and distinctly at large. Livery jurist will
agree that had the ROSTERS been mute and
actually at large and roaming about the
county and coming in contact with persons
have come into court at all. SO. if all
the persons within earshot of the
ROSTERS had been deaf there
would have been 10 complaint. The court
holds, therefore. that the ROSTERS were to
all intents and purposes at large within the
meaning Of the law. And the owner or
owners of these BOOSTERS annot escape the
penalty by claiming that he or they issued
no actual permits for the rooltsrs' voices to
flow at large. Since the owner did not
take measures to keep his ROSTERS noctur-
nal mutations at home, he, within the
meaning and intent of the law, winked at
their roaming at large.
THE court holds, further, that the owner
of such an animal may be indicted for n
common nuisance: l Russ. Grimes, CAB;
Burn. Just, Nuisance, o; Bowler, Inst.
1.-THE learned counsel for the defendant
claim that the boosters we're, in Growing, OK
crossing only a function of their nature to
suppress which would have been II violation
of the statute prohibiting cruelty to Ani-
mails. But the court holds that the owner
of any animal, tame or wild, is liable for
the exercise of such dan gerous tendencies
as generally belong to its nature; Wharton.
Negl. section 1928. Anything is dangerous
that threatens harm or that causes harm.
The Growing of these ROSTERS at night
caused insomnia, which il harmful, since it
may result in insanity or death. The court
holds that 1T is not necessary for
the witnesses for the plaintiff to
produce their insomnia in court, siuce
1t Is a matter of common knowledge that
one able-voiced and restless rooster can
keep a whole village in a state OF insomnia
and profanity. Every one knows also that
growing belongs to the ROSTERS DISPOSE
ton; it is a distinct property Of the rooster.
The court holds, again, that to recover
for damages inflicted by rabid, danger
Gus, noxlous or insomniagenous rooster il
Is not necessary to prove that it has pre-
viously caused death, insanity, insomnia or
profanity. This is we'll supported by de-
cisions Of other learned courts, that to re-
cover for damages inflicted by a ferocioua
dog it is not necessary to prove that it has
bitten a person before; l.. Il. 9, G. P l; l2e
Mass, 81; % N. Y, 81.
Therefore. while no mention is made OF
r~oosters in the New jersey statues from
1909 up to the present time, this court holds
that the exercise of his voice by a rooste,
between nine P. NJ. and eight q,
m. constitutes a dangerous nuts.
ance-in law and common sense
The court therefore finds for thu
plaintiff and at1ixes upon the %defendent Q
fine of $25 per rooster, the fine to be 70.
mitted upon condition that the defender,
repair within twenty-four hours Il
the Office of a physician skilled
in operating upon the thront, and
shall have the said physician then ant
there cut the vocal chords Of the mischiey-
GUS. ferocious, noisy, Growing ROSTERS"
The Vacancies in the Commission.