Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-05-15
ILLEGAL DEATH PENALTIES
Mr. sil'ers 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 a 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.
it 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-
sorted to- and John Weber, who is Mrs.
Budin' 8 brother-in-law. was tried. He
proved that he was not the owner of the
dog and for this rec son 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 of article 4
reading:
visions Of sections l and of this article
shall. On conviction, be punished by a fine
or not less than s. nor more than 500. 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
J dgment 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-
40 N 60
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,
Tor the reason that II conflicts with the
act of Congress relating TO danger Gus dogs
Under that act. he sad a dog cannot be
Killed for the first biting, and he read the
section, which is as follows:
LAW of Congress.
III any owner or possessor of a fierce
or dangerous dog permit the same to 20
at large to the danger or annoyance of
the inhabitants he shall forfeit and pay
for the first offense the sum of $40; for
the second. $40. and upon third convfc-
ton for the same offense the Commission
erS shall Immediately cause the dog 10 he
slain and buried"
Counsel also contended that the same
act made dog personal property, and
It's 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:
Amy 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
Jcring or destroying the same shall be liza
lie 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
Jcct 10 SUCH modification as the particular
circumstances Of the case may make prom
err
The Dogs Win.
Counsel then argued that because of the