Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-05-15
ILLEGAL DEATH PENALTIES
Mr. sillsrs DEFENDS the Whole Canine
Race.
Dogs Cannot BE Killed for First Of
tense, Even When
They Bite.

According to the decision of Judge Mil
Ter rendered in the Police Court THIS morn
ing number of death sentences have been
illegally imposed and executed during the
past few months Under this decision
Ernest Gerstenberg's dog Bismarck" the
big dog that is under a Police Court death
sentence, cannot be legally executed. This
decision, which will result in saving the
lives of many dogs, was rendered because
Of Lawyer Albert Sillers' plea for the
CANNES in the case of Mrs. Bertha Budin
OF No. 81 K street northwest, whose dog,
1t was charged, had bitten Mrs. Tashop's
child on the arm The Budins and Tashops
are next-door neighbors, and when the
injury had been inflicted the law was re-
serted to, and John Weber. who is Mrs.
Bud1ns brother-in-laW. was tried. He
proved that he was not the owner of the
dog and for this reason Judge Kimball dis
missed the case.
When the warrant for Mrs Budin was
sworn cut her counsel, Lawyer Sillers,
moved that the case be sent before Judge
Miller, which was DONE and the hearing
took place several days ago.
Police Regulations.
Prosecuting Attorney Pugh. on behalf of
the District, filed the charge under The
police regulations, section 3 of article 8
reading:
amy person violating any Of the pro-
visions Of sections l and 2 of this article
shall. On conviction, be punished by fine
Of not less than s. nor more than $40. and,
In addition, in case of the biting of any
person Except upon the premises of the
owner OF the animal SO biting), the animal
shall be adjudged to be killed. and on such
Judgment shall be killed by any member of
the police force; aud in case OF a second
violation of any other provision of either
Of said sections, the animal. unless perma-
nently removed from the District of CO.
lumbia within twenty-four hours after such
second offense, 81 all SO be killed"
This section, Lawyer Sillers argued the
Commissioners had no authority to enact
for the reason that It conflicts with the
act Of Congress relating to danger Gus dogs.
Under that act, he said, a dog cannot be
killed for the first biting and he read the
section, Which Is as follows:
Law of Congress.
eff any owner or possessor of a fierce
or dangerous dog permit the same to 10
at large. to the danger or annoyance of
the Inhabitants. he shall forfeit and pay
for the first offense the sum of SO; for
the second $50. and upon a third convfc-
| ton for the same offense the Commission
ers shall Immediately cause the dog to be
slain and buried"
Counsel also contended that the same
act made a dog personal property, and
us owner has me same right in the dog
as lie has in the watch he wears or in any
other personal property. He cited the
section of the act which declares:
ANY dog wearing the tax tag hereinbe-
lore provided for shall be permitted to run at
large In the District of Columbia, and shall
be regarded as personal property in all the
courts OF said District; and any person in
JtrinS or destroying the same shall be liza
hie to civil action for damages which
may be awarded in a sum equal to the
value usually put upon such property by
persons buying and selling the same, sub
Ject TO such modification the particular
circumstances of the case may make prop
err
The Dogs Win.
Counsel then argued that because of the
act of Congress the Commissioners had no,
the right to enact the section of the regu-
| lations under which this charge was
brought. These laws. he said, relate to
licensed dogs, and the dog in this case was
| licensed.
Mr.. Pugh, for the District. argued in he.
half of the law. He held that the Commits
sicners had the right to pass the regula ton
ard said that the matter had bee passed
| upon by Judge Kimball more than once
And for that reason" said Lawyer Sill
ie1s. Il came up here as the Court of APP
Eeals."
Judge Miller read the different sections
Of the laws quoted. and said he was forced
to decide III favor of the defense He was
clearly Of the opinion that the Commission
ers had no right to enact this particular
section. and, sustaining the point raised by
Lawyer Sillecs, dismissed the case.
MIR. PIgh announced that he would not
abandon prosecutions of this kind, and said
he would file cases in which there had
been oiting.
Under this decision cases may be brought
under the act of Congress, the penalty for
the first offense being So for the second,
s2o, and for the third conviction, the death
of the dog.