The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1892-07-08
THE DOG AND THE LAW

Dut unlike tltIlI, Can never De maze
useful. They are nuisance to the
owner and to all his neighbors and are
constant menace to the community.
sis thy servant dog that he should
do this thing2' sufficiently indicates
the characteristics of this pestferous
animal. A few anecdotes and Incl
dents in the history of the race are not
sufficient to redeem it from general
condemnation. The baying and howl
ing Of dogs in the night time is to
many persons intolerable, and nervous
and sick people and children are
greatly disturbed by such discordant
noises.
Various statutes have been passed
restraining and endeavoring to regu-
late the nuisance. In 1851, Purdon,
nth Ed. page zoS, Boroughs were
authorized to prohibit and regulate the
running at large Of dogs and other
animals, and in the 81 Sec. Of the
Act, $40 authorize and direct the
killing Of dogs running at large con-
trary to the regulations Of the borough" "
Under the above Act, the town of
Bloomsburg hy Ordnance No. l, pass
ed May 1880, provided that
I. All dogs owned or kept by any
person within the town limits shall be
taxed in the following manner: One
dollar for the first dog and two dol.
lars, for each and every dog aoove
that number so owned or kept, and to
be collected in like manner as taxes
are recoverable by law, for the use Of
the town.
2. Every bitch owned by any per
son shall be taxed three dollars, and
further, shall not at any time be per-
mitted to run at large within the limits
of the town. And in case any one is
found running at large it shall be the
duty of the constable to kill, or have
the same killed as soon as practicable,
for which service he shall receive a
compensation Of one dollar from the
town."
Not one of the constables or police.
men performs his duty in this regard
or pretends to. Hundreds OF tine
animals spoken of in the end Section
are running the town every day, in a
more or less excitable condition, but
the ordinance is as useless as the officer,
and the people are obliged to put up
with three nuisances rolled into one
| Is this to continue Has the public
no rights as against these marauders'
In many parts of the town citizens
are endeavoring to beautlty their
grounds they are setting out shubbery
l-they are cultiva'ing flowers they
are removing their fences; and they
are apt to find in the morning that
what they so carefully planted in the
evening has been torn out by the dogs
and destroyed, during the night. The
lawn is scratched up, the flower beds
rol ed over and other depred .tons
committed.
There are perhaps one thousand
dogs IN the town Of Bloomsbury
there are two hundred and nineteen
returned for taxation and FIVE are re-
pistered under the act of 1878. What
sufficient answer have the assessors to
mase to such state of facts? How
have they performed the duty incum'
bent upon themp They are to be
classed with the constables in this
matter and are equally remlss. Two
or three thousand dollars ought to be
raised by dog tax in this town, and to
enforce the law would be double
relief. For if the dogs which are not
returned have no owner, they should
be at once killed, and the streets and
sidewalks be relieved of lazy, swapping
,, ours. For although the Act of 1886
. makes all dogs personal property, yet
, personal property must have an owner
or keeper, and if not, then no man
can complain OF the killing or asporta
ton of any of the tribe. When during
,, the August days some rabid dog in
yades the town and bites all the cur;
and pugs which attempt to hold con
yersation with him, perhaps the pub
,, lie will be aroused to sense OF the
danger, unless it thinks more of its
!, dogs than it does Of its children.
:, In 1S47, in Lycoming county, be-
. fore Judge Anthony was tried the case
: of Kline VS.. King, 6 Pa. SIS.
n Kline brought an action agalns
.. King to recover damages for killing
dog belonging to the plaintiff. King
nIeoded ,,ot oyiltu apd specially thai
the s dog came can into his garden and en-
closed premises for the purposes Of
, plunder and depreciation and was
actually engaged therein, at and abou,
the time defendant killed him. 1t was
,, also alleged that the slut was vicious
and ferocious, but that is not impor
, tant here. Anthony instructed the
,, Jury to find FOR Plaintiff, and upon the
; verdict and judgment the defendant
> took writ OF error to the Supreme
Court. The case was argued b}
IanrvD Ellis for Plaintiff in error anC