Evening star., 1895-08-29
Mr.. GERSTENBERG'S DOG
It Occupies Considerable of the Time Of
the Police Court
It's Owner Charged With Being In
Contempt The Courts
Decision Reserved.

Saloonkeeper Ernest Gerstenberg's hig
deg Bismarck is still alive, notwithstand-
ing the fact that his death was ordered by
Judge Scott several days ago for the rea-
son that the animals teeth drew blood
from a boys leg. Mr.. Gerstenberg told the
court when the case was tried that he
would not kill the dog, nor would he allow
a representative of the District to execute
his pet, and he evidently meant what he
said.
Wien the other business of the court had
been disposed of Mr.. Pugh called Judge
Scotts attention to the case of Bismarck"
This case, Mr.. Pugh said. was in court
for two reasons. When the cas-. was in
court the other day, he said, the dog was
ordered killed, and no fine was imposed.
The law requires the imposition of fine
IN addition to the death of the animal. Mr..
Ger.tenberg, he said, is therefore in court
for the purpose of having a fine imposed
and also for the purpose of being punished
for contempt. He said that after the trial
of the case Policeman Sutton was the
member of the force who was ordered TO
execute the dog, but the owner Of the dog
refused to deliver up the animal when he
went 10 the house to put into execution
the courts order
Attacking the Order.
Messrs. Albright and Sillers, for the de-
fendant, argued that the court had no right
to pass the order concerning the dogs
death, and therefore their client could not
be in contempt. They cited the act of Con-
gress concerning fierce and dangerous dogs,
and said that the law of the Commission
ers in reference to biting dogs was in d.
rect conflict with this act. Counsel cited
authorities in support of their claim.
Mr.. Pugh answered counsel. and during
the course Of his remarks he said he
Ia Inn nP fnn Ct,
ers was wise one. Individually, ho said
he was opposed to the keeping of dogs in
the city, especially curing the hot wea ther
when there are SO many dangers. Dogs,
he said. are liable to become mad and
hydrophobia is likely to result from some
Of the biting.
The regulation of the Commissioners he
said, does not affect the act of Congress.
The latter provides against fierce and
dangerous dogs, while the former is de-
signed to punish persons for having biting
dogs. Mr. Pugh said that every biting dog
is not necessarily fierce and dangerous rof
does it follow that a fierce and dangerous
DOG must bite somebody.
In this particular case, he said, Mr.
Gerstenberg denies that his dog is fierce
and dangerous, but he cannot deny that
the dog is biting animal.
Both Judges Miller and Kimban. he said,
have disposed of cases under this act and
this is the first time the owner of a dog
has refused to give up the animal Mr.
Pugh told the court of the circumstances
under which the dog bit a boy who was
going to get his newspapers. The biting
occurred in a public alley and not on the
premises of its owner.
In reply to Mr.. Pugh counsel for the de-
fendant argued that there was no legal
Judgment In the case, and the defendant
therefore could not be in contempt The
judgment. they argued, was imperfect and
consequently it is not legal.
Judge Scott heard further argument, and
reserved his decision until tomorrow.