The Democrat. (Scotland Neck, Halifax Co., N.C.) 1884-1896, 1895-02-21
THE LAW FOR DOGS.
COMMON LAW RULES.
Nuisances or Not.
Youths Companion.

I Gums COUJ)IHtOH.
1t is not easy to understand why the
do-. whose intelligence and strength
have been utiliz generally by saw
age as we'll by civilized L .ons, should
have been regarded by the law az
among the basest Of animals. The
statute law Of England, even down to
the early part of the present century,
made the stealing Of fish, swans or
hawks, crimes punishable by severe
penalties and the stealing of swine, or
poultry, at common law, was larceny (;
but a dog, which was considered to
have no value and to be kept merely
to crafty whim or fancy of its owner,
could not be the subject of that crime
The laws of some of our states still
cling to the idea that there can be no
actual property in dog :; but the
more recently approved doctrine seems
to be that dog is property, in the full
est sense, and may be the subject Of
larceny, where the statutes bring all
personal property within the scope
of the definition of that crime
Attached to the right of property
which one may acquire in an animal,
are certain responsibilities tor is acts,
which the owner or keeper incurs.
One who knows a dog to be vicious,
yet keeps, harbors Or allows 1t to resort
about his premises, is responsible for
any injury it may do to another's per-
son or property; but if the dogs evil
habits have not been brought to his
knowledge or notice, he is not liable
for such injury.
A person who employs watchdog
to guard his premises against trespass-
ers is negligent if he allow it to be at
large and even the keeping of dog,
known to be of savage Or ferOcious ma
ture, is, in ITSELF an act Of negligence,
as it would be to keep a lion, tiger Or
other fierce beast.
When one has been bitten by such
dog, the purpose for which the animal
is employed, and the manner IN which
it is restrained, are circumstances tend
ing to show knowledge by the keeper
Of the dogs propensities, without the
fact appearing that it has before bitten
any one.
A dog accustomed to bite persons is
public nuisance, and public safety de-
mands that, whenever running at
large, it may lawfully be killed by any
one. 1t is, in fact, the owners duty to
kill it, as soon as he knows Its habits.
It is presumed that every dog running
at large is peaceable. The owner OF
dog, who has been notified of its habits
of biting, is liable if the dog, running
at large, bites person who, not know
ing its evil disposition, uses ordinary
familiarities with it.
A person who knows the vicious ten
denotes of a dog, yet wantonly pro
vokes it, or of his own accord and un-
necessarily puts himself in the way Of
such an animal and in that way suffers
injury, is himself at fault and no liabil
ity falls upon the owner.
The dogs of different persons are
sometimes caught killing sheep or do
ing some other sort of mischief togeth-
er. Each owner in such case can be
held responsible for the injury done
bv his own dog, and for no more.
If dog chases and kills ones do
nestle animal on ones land, one has
the right to kill the dog; but If 1t
merely chases or bites an animal, then,
in order to justify killing the dog, 1t
must be shown that it could not other
wise be separated from the animal 1t
was pursuing.
In addition to the rules of the COM
mon law, there are in many states stat
utes and in most large cities ordinances
regulating the keeping Of dogs.