The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-12-22

heavily the urban owner Of these saw
age nenaces 10 rural safety.
The complaint alleged merely that
defendant wrongfuily kept several
fierce and dangerous dogs well know
ing them 10 be ferocious. vicious and %
4 mischievous disposition. and accus-
toned 70 attack and bite mankind: that
the said dogs or some Of them. while IN
The keeping % the defendant. attacked
and biz the plaintiff and severely wound
ed him but Contained 10 allegation OF
any participation by defendant IA the
injury or OF any act o. negligence on
hts part II was therefore dcmgrr-i
70 on the merits as no; stating cause
Of action.
Justice Russell said. There has
been much discussion IN the books as
- the standing 81 the dogs both as -
the right o. ownership in them and The
limitations under which hey may "a
kept and used They have become noz
not before. recognized article %
property and adopted from the Wild
state into that % ferae dcCneStcae. As a
pet. companion. Watchdog. or herder.
ne has has uses sentimental OF ether
wise. For his courageous and faith
fui qualities h= has been admired BY all
walks OF mankind and innmortSlized by
eminent writers Socrates said of hifns
When see some men / love my dog
the more. and Lord Byron Wrote OF
him.
Blu, he poor dog In Afe the foremost
friend
The frs; 70 come. forcrnoS; 70 dcfend-'
And again:
""1Ns sweet 20 hear the watcA-doe's
honest bark.
Bay deep-Snouthed welcome as We draw
near home
AT the present day this animal 10
one % those which are protected by the
phil2n thropy Of the society which be-
hevcS and maintains that the lower
animals should be shteRi-d from cruelty
as well as the human animal lie -
thus recognized as entitled 20 his propeT
place In the economy OF civilization.
But. whs, Is that place? The ans
wcr 10 this inquiry may solve not only
the rights OF the animal himself as a
dog. but also the rights OF his owner
10 use and keep him.
''One OF the ahlest Of the opinions IN
the Jurisprudence Of thls state upon
this subject was written by the late
Justice W. F. Alien as FAR back as 1855.
In that case the defendant had q dog
evidently Of superior ability In The fight
Ing line 20 that Of the dos owned by the
plaintiff. 80 That IN a fcrce contention
upon the merits % the respective ami
mails the defendants dog succeeded IN
dcpriying the plaintiff Of his exist
cnce. Being a supposedly valuable dog
the plaintiff sued the defendant and re-
covered for the value OF his dog IL
became. therefore. necessary for the
Genera Term. upon an appeal being
taken from the afiirrnance by the coun-
~ court Of the Justices judgment. 10
determine whether. prtms facie. the
fact Of the killing justified the recovery
there being on evidence as 90 which dog
was originally the agEressor.
Justice Allen frankly confessed his
incomT~ tcncy 10 speak 10y authority -
the code ducllc Of dogs He recoguiz-
Ell. however. and 1udicially adopted the
poets commentary Ca the nature 4
dogs;
That dogs delight 90 bark and bite,
For God hath made them So
and tudicially announced the rule that.
when dogs night in pursuance * their
disposition 10 do so. the mere killing y
one dog by another does not Justify "a
recovery. and that the owner of thc
slain dog IS entitled only 20 the slavaEc.
consisting of the skin % the deceased
HE. however. hmits the application
OF the rule lain down By him by fhr
statement that there was no proof ia
the case that the dos triumphant vas
and the iznpIica t.on fairly - that. y
this kind q a character had been pro-
ven 20 exist IN me surviving dog the
trial colrt may haye been justified ia iis
Judgment.
This was "A case 70 determine the re-
Fponsfbihty q tge owner ia q raHtro-
versy between dos and drs THE rule
should be stronger a. at-ains the own
Ct Of the offending animal where 81.
~. go. = d a..
a human GeiuE. Couv~iing the htgn-
est place here or hereafter 90 this cosn-
pani0n 90 man Whs-h S. ciaiunef ~ any
one even - tire faifea 81 the fuflau
e That On the happy hunting grounds
His faithful deg shall bear him co<8-
TpAny
st5ll in the walks az rfs Pc muy' give
way 20 the interest Of men. Whsfh~r
rhss be 50 Or not. as a question % pure
ethics. ~ D. - reCogn .ze3 ~ man made
law IN courts admin sisFrd ty man. A.
against The dor. man ha- the risCts q
way. II IS not n pres sumption q law
or fac, tfr8t q human being g. 81 a
nerce. Viciour or dangerous disposition
u a. ar yet The bc35rf Of mankind. recoR-
nizS-i and Gctef UPON. hat the orciu-
airy nature ar human h~iuws has th~
proper eiesnents - Kindness and ias;ie~-
II. therefore seems 70 be a uer-s=ary
dangerous animal. accustomed 20 fsfs
mankind. a. tac5gs mi wounds kU-
man being. the presumption 10 mat tbs
dor - me asxre@p1r and the Offender.
which pr~Eusnption may. q coarv>. 30
r~outts1. but. without T~butfing proof.
must b acted upon a. wei founded
Starting vita this sy-eslFuDtio1- "a
between the dog and n IN. that to
facts stated shors the dng - - IN ths
wrong what is the presumed INABILITY =
the owner ~ IL IA uns30sbtsd fat
that owners ffa=e a rtght % keep fierce
and dangerous dpgs 20 TIE pro- seton
% fhsi- premises. = - guarded that
they viii iuGIcf 10 injury. except tn
unusual emergency vhsCf iJsf iGss fheir
resort % natures wagons in eef"Dos
n their rrszf-r's b~i9nziuxs Sob a
state q farts may V~l 30 yssti aCs-
ton - a. owner as ~sH ss ite d1g.
But s. IA not 20 Re- pFssirrle-d eith9gf
proJS. anf. fheT~fgFs. upon ~ g~5ar3
that w1--s a a~res Vicious ard IL nEe~
Vl1s Ok. scr-lsfo~Tef % blt~ usauk;n1.
kn1,S-l - - ssEsh - - owner. atta<sa
All wants q hannza fssinr. ~ bgF-
den Ia~s Vv1a "a rn&rf - 90 sh97s 10
- srrlzse. gnis cel tf0FsfsT
Is d@f1~1