The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1895-07-18
DOG LAW.
Statutes Regulating the Keeping Of the
Animals,

STATUTES Regulating tho keeping or tne
Animals.
1t is not easy to understand why the
dog, whose intelligence and strength
have been utilized so generally by
savage as well as by civilized nations,
should have been regarded by the law
as 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 dog, which was considered to
have no value and to be kept merely to
crafty within 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 fullest
sense, and may be the subject of lar
ceny, where the statutes bring all
personal property" within scope of the
definition of that crime
Attached to the right of property
which one may acquire in an animal,
are certain responsibilities for it's acts,
which the owner or keeper incurs
One who knows dog to be vicious,
yet keeps, harbors or allows it to re-
sort about his premises, is responsible
for any injury it may do to another's
person or property; but If the dogs
evil habits have not been brought to
his knowledge or notice, he is not liable
for such injury.
person who employs a Watchdog
to guard his premises against tres
passers is negligent If he allow it to
be at large; and even the keeping of
dog, known to be of savage and feA-
cious nature, is, in itself, an act of neg
Ggence, as it would be to keep lion,
a tiger or other fierce beast.
When one has been bitten by such a
dog, the purpose for which the animal
is employed, and the manner in which
it is restrained, are circumstances
tending to show knowledge by the
keeper of the dogs propensities, with
out the fact appearing that it has be-
fore bitten anyone.
A dog accustomed to bite persons is
a public nuisance, and public safety
demands that, whenever running at
large, it may lawfully be killed by
anyone. 1t is, in fact, the owners duty
to kill it, as soon as he knows it's hab-
its. 1t is presumed that every dog
running at large is peaceable. The
owner of n dog, who has been notified
of its habits of biting, is liable if the
dog, Running at large, bites a person
who, not knowing 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 I'M
necessarily puts himself in the way
of such an animal and in that way stf-
fers injury, is himself at fault and no
liability falls upon the owner.
The dogs of different persons are
sometimes caught killing sheep or do
ting some other sort of mischief to-
gether Each owner in such a case
can be held responsible for the injury
done by his own dog, and for no more.
If dog chases and kill ones domes-
tic animal on ones land, one has the
right to kill the dog; but if it merely
chases or bites an animal, then, in or
der to justify killing the dog, it must
be shown that it could not otherwise
be separated from the animal it was
pursuing.
In addition to the rules of the COM
mon law, there are in many states
statutes and in most large cities or
dinances regulating and licensing the
keeping of dogs.-Youth's Companion.