The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1894-09-15
when Animals we're Malefactors.
From the New York sun.

dinary prison OF the place. The public
prosecutor prepared formal accusation.
Witnesses were then examined and their
dispositions taken as to the truth of the
charge. If the charge against the accused
beast was sustained, and conviction fol-
lowed, the court solemnly pronounced SEN
tence upon the culprit, which, if a capital
case, was followed by public execution with
great formality, the condemned animal be-
ing sometimes dressed in the garb of men.
The mode of death was by burning, hang
ing by the legs, mutilation or manning
according to the gravity of the offence for
which punishment was to be inflicted.
'It seems so ridiculous now, that if the
facts were not spread on the official records
of the courts that took eognizance of the
cases, it would not be believed by any one
to-day that in France in the latter part of
the sixteenth century-1572- seventeen
hogs were tried, convicted, and sentenced
to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, the
crime alleged against them being the mu-
tilation and devouring of infants in their
cradles Still, when one stops to ponder
over what must have been the economical
condition of the time that the association
of swine and sleeping babes was so close
that the latter became easy food for the
former, it may not need the court records
to testify to the peculiar relations of dumb
beasts to the laws of that credulous age
In 1899, near Dion, a bull, enraged by a
lad who insisted on fishing through field
in which the animal was pasturing, charged
upon the boy, and placed him forever be-
yond the pale of the angling brotherhood
The bull was arrested, tried, and convicted,
the accusation against him being that he
had 'furiously killed young lad OF ii or
10 years. He was sentenced to be pub
licly hanged until dead, and he was. Even
horses were visited with capital punish
ment in France for the killing or manning
of human beings.
''In Sardinia the law was also very rig
orous against animals, and judicial punish
ment was visited against all offenders ex-
cept the ass. This animal, for some rea-
son, seems to have escaped the death pen
atty for his offences. For the first offence
one of his ears was cut off For the second
his other ear was chopped from his head,
and if he was incorrigible and taken third
time charged with crime he was declared
forfeit to the crown. This, at this distant
day, doesn't seem to reflect much credit on
the crown, for presumably the punishment
for third offence is greater than that in
ficted for q first or second. In what esti-
nation must the crown have been held in
Sardinia 500 years ago, if it were greater
punishment for Il mule to belong to it than
it was to have both ears cut off f?
''But, compared with other prosecutions
and procedures under the law of that time,
these and similar actions became rational
and of good cause. Thus, in cases where
physical seizure of the offender was impos-
sible or impracticable and its appearance
in court not to be had, the law handed the
maleiactor over to the ecclesiastical author
ities to be dealt with. Such offenders
were locusts, rats, flies, caterpillars, and
the like of such things, which went about
without the fear of the law before them,
devouring the crops and pestering the peo.
pie. judgement against these offending
outlaws was fiercely hurled in the shape
of anathema and malediction. In the
prosecution of culprits such as these legal
forms were observed, and the accused were
assured the right of assignment Of counsel
for their defence. One of the latest cases
of this kind on record is prosecution
brought against caterpillars in Valence, in
1885. This was argued with the greatest
solemnity, and taxed the learning of both
lawyers and ecclesiastics, so acute were the
many points of law that were urged pro
and con. The legal and ecclesiastical bat
tie over the caterpillars lasted so long that
when the case was closed and the court
ready to pronounce its judgment it was
found that, the accused, having got through
with work of devastation had disappeared
from the jurisdiction of all courts.
"In 1910 prosecution was entered
against horde of rats that were eating up
the barley in the south of France. The
rats were defended by the great lawyer of
that day, Chasseneux. He urged in be-
half of his clients that there was no legal
mode of preventing them from returning
to the place whence they had come, and
that there was no way open to them where
cats might not lie in wait Besides his
legal points he brought may Scriptural ar
guments to bear in favor of the rats, and
he won the case. The prosecution fell,
and the rats were ordered to return to
their native place at once. The record
does not say how the Judgment was re-
ceived by the devastating rodents.
I'm 1860 pest of small flies which was
prosecuted at Mayence escaped the dire
effects of anathema blythe skillful handling
of their case by counsel, who defended
them on the plea Of their extreme youth
and small size This struck the learned |
and pious Court as irrefutable argument,
and he ordered that, if the flies were driven
away, those driving them must provide
them spot to which they could retire and