The Portland daily press., 1894-06-05
DEERING.
The Dog Tax Case Before Judge
Elder Yesterday.


In the Deering Municipal Court yester-
day morning the continued case OF the
city against Col. Edward Moore, on &C.
count of the non-payment of the tax on
| dog kept on his premises, was tried.
Hon. Charles f. Libby appeared for Col.
Moore. The city as unrepresented, unless
by Judge Elder, whom the City Council
have made city solicitor as we'll as
judge.
The complaint, which was criminal
one set forth that Col. Moore harbored
an unlicensed female dog on his premis-
eS
The first witness was Constable
Henry W. Illsley, who testified that he
had been employed by the city to look
after unlicensed dogs. On May Dist he
visited Col. Moore's estate and inquired
about the dog Of Col. Moore's brother,
who was the owner 'of the dog On the
23rd he again called and was met by
Col. Moore, who told him that he would
pay whatever dog licenses he had to
pay when he should pay his taxes. Col.
Moore further informed him that he did
not want him sneakiDg about his prem
ises If he had any business he could
call at his Office in his house.
The witness was sharply cross ques-
toned by Mr.. Libby. He admitted that
of Col Moore's brother; and was merely
proceeding against Col. Moore for bar
boring the dog. The Mayor had SO di-
rected him to proceed, and Judge Elder
had drawn up the complaint.
Mr.. Libby called the attention OF the
court to the fact that this was criminal
complaint, and not a civil one, and
said.
"Does the Court think tnat the legis-
lature intended for this simple matter to
authorize an ordinary constable to ar
rest ciJizen, it may be leading cltl-
zen land bring him before this court as
a criminal? This should be civil and
not criminal action"
Therefore Mr.. Libby asked that the
matter be dropped, but being overruled
by Judge Elder, the case proceeded.
Mr.. William +. Davis testified that he
had seen the dog on Col. Moore's premis-
Col. Edward Moore was called to the
stand, and testified that he had been a
citizen of Deering for seventeen years.
He had not owned a dog for three years.
His brother, L.B. Moore, who lived in
the same house with him, owned a
female St. Bernard dog
Mr.. Libby here presented license of
1893, which L.. B. Moore had taken out
for the dog in question.
City Solicitor Elder here cross exam
ined, asking Col. Moore whether the dog
was harbored on his premise. Col.
Moore said it was; but he did not re-
mem Der of having seen it since the mid
die of May.
Col. Moore then described the inter-
view with Constable Illsley, who APP
peared with papers and under instruc-
tions to arrest him and take him to
court. These instructions came from
the city clerk
City Clerk 7. Frank Jones was called
by Mr.. Libby and testified that Col.
Moore's brother had offered to pay the
license fee on the dog on the day when
Col. Moore was brought up.
Mr.. Jones told MIR. L. B. Moore that as
there was litigation about the dog he
would prefer to let the matter stand.
Mr.. Libby said in opening his argu-
ment that dog cases had occupied the
attention of the courts very freq uently,
and there was much literature upon the
subject. This case, which was mistaken
ly brought on the criminal instead of on
the civil side, alleged, against Col.
Moore that he had "harbored"the dog.
Now the statutes made the keeper as
we'll as the owner of Is dog liable, be-
cause it was often impossib BILE to know or
reach the owner. But in all such cases
the keeper is never considered the party
liable when the owner is present and
known. Mr.. Libby quoted the case of
Whitmore VS.. Thomas, a case whera man
living on farm with a man named
Rogers owned dog which bit Whit
more. The dog had the run of the prem
Uses and was often seen about with Whit
more. But Rogers was the owner and
put the licenses on the dog. Yet the
court decided that even though the dog
was kept on the premises with the
knowledge and acquiescence of the pro-
piretor of the premises, the proprietor
was not liable Otherwise a hotel keep
er might be liable for the act of a dog
belonging to guest; or in other similar
cases injustice might result from such
principle. In this case Col. Moore
lives on his farm, which he occupies
jointly with his brother, who owns the
dog This brother superintends the
work of the farm, has his family there,
and is the joint occupant of the house
and farm. Is not this a much stronger
case than that?
Why then is Col. Moore subjected to
the ignominy of criminal prosecution?
the dog? The constable who served the
process admits that he knew who owned
the dog? The taking out of the license
of the dog by the brother. was on record
in the records of the city. Why was it
necessary to go back of the owner to an
other man? If this man is criminal
before this court, would like to know
where you get the jurisdiction to do it?
If an action of debt, civil action, had
been brought, l could understand it.
But / cannot understand why he is
brought here on criminal action. And
even if this were civil action, could
not understand, why Col. Moore should
be considered the "keeper." Does this
court mean to say that two brothers
cannot live together ON farm without
one brother being the keeper of the
property of the other? 1t seems to me
that mistake has been N AIDE here: and
that in justice to Col. Moore this prose.
cution should be dropped
Judge Elder said that this case had ex-
cited considerable notice, largely perhaps
on accout of the prominence of the de-
tendant. The proceedings had been
simply to carry out the right of the CITY
to collect the dog license. The constable
had proceeded there as directed, to get
satisfaction from the owner or KEEPER.
Personally Judge Elder said he had not
known until Monday that Col. Moore was
not the owner of the dog. So far as the
method of procedure was concerned.
there was difference of opinion among