Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-09-11
CATS AND DOGS IN LAW.

Gerry courts had before It a case which
involved very unusual state OF facts'
The plaintiff, q maiden lady, claimed that
she was entitled TO half share IN a
blue Persian cat. which rejoiced In the
pompous name OF Roy. She asked that
an account of the partnership be taken,
and that other complications regarding the
cat be Strengthened out. The defendant,
as might have been expected. was like
wise a spinster, and It appears from the
evidence that during the klttenhood OF
the cat she gave the animal into the
charge OF the plaintiff. who bestowed
upon Il all those tender attentions which
the pets of unmarried ladies so frequent
ly enjoy.
| Perhaps all would have gone as mer-
| rily as a wedding bell despite the cell
| bacy OF the litigants) had not the much
fondled Roy developed some most extra
ordinary characteristics. in short, the
cat astouished its most ardent admirers
by developing an amazing capacity Tor
prlze-wnning. AT all the cat-shows the
whskered quadruped became a prime
favorite, and many trophies fell TO its lot
or more strictly speaking. TO the lot OF
its owners. 1t was entered at the Crystal
Palace Show, In the joint names OF the
plaintiff and defendant under the rue
requiring the names OF the animals
owners 10 be registered. But after the
development of the winning streak The
hot no defendant
any property in the cat.
The Lord Chancellor, after he had duly
scratched his legal pate In consideration
of the much-vexed question. decided tnat
a partnership existed between the liti-
gants. and. therefore. he ordered the ac-
counts of the partnership to be taken. lie
also granted an injunction restraining
the defendant from selling or dealing
with Roy in any way prejudicial TO the
plaintiffs property in it,
The above case might well strike the
layman as an absurdity and as BELT
Ting the dignity of the court, but mousse
hold pets, such as dogs, cats, parrots
monkeys, etc, have so frequently been
the subject matter of litigation that a
distinct and clearly defined line of de-
cisions concerning them has sprung into
existence. And turning aside for a mo-
ment from the civil 10 the criminal re-
cords. we find scores Of public offences
which have had their origin in quarrels,
engendered by disputes about animals
especially dogs. Indeed. many a poor soul
has been sent TO his grave on account
OF some canine which he cherished or
maltreated. The old maxim, Love me,
love my dog" has had its force but too
well proved by the many crimes incident
10 this affection existing between man
and his dumb friend.
The latest encyclopaedia on law de-
votes forty closely printed pages to the
subject of animals" and cites hundreds
OF cases which have been decided on
questions pertaining to the brute crea-
ton. Nor are the principles enunciated
by any means simple or frivolous. In
deed, some very interesting controversies
nations have arisen along these
lines. The disputes between Great Britain
and the United States concerning the seal
have carried our diplomats into very deep
legal waters, as have also the, frequent
questions arising from fishery rights.
The law, which is OF all sciences the
most discriminating, makes some very
broad distinctions between wild animals
0erae naturae). and those which serve
man as beasts of burden or for domestic
In the former he has only a
qualified property. while in the latter his
dominion is complete. And then. again,
there was formerly-and is now to some
extent-a distinction between those do
nestle animals which have an actual
value, such as pigs. horses,
COWS, and poultry, and those which are
kept for mere within or pleasure as pets.
such as cats, dogs, monkeys etc The
latter were, at common law, not subjects
Of larceny, unless, forsooth, they deve
oped a money-makng capacity like the
Roy, the darling Of the spin
sters. In those halcyon days one could
legal impunity.
But the dog-our best and most lovable |
friend Except when he learns city ways
and makes himself obnoxious at nighD- |
mas received distinct recognition from the |
Virginia Legislature. The solons Of the |
session Of 1894 passed law that all |
dogs OF the cities of Richmond and Man |
chester and in the county of Henrico |
md all dogs listed for taxation in any |
county or city OF the State, should be |
deemed personal property, and might be |
he subject of petit larceny and malicious |
)r unlawful trespass. And the last Legis- |
allure, doubtless in Difference 10 pressure |
rom their four-legged constituents In
'luded the dogs OF Petersburg. Alexan-
iria. and Dinwlddie within the statute I
above alluded TO.
We are inclined TO think that the
'anines Of Richmond have not shown due
appreciation of the courtesies conferred
ipon them and we would henceforth re-
them to dog-catchers rather
han TO the legislators.
---------
The Board OF Visitors to West Point,
his year. recommends. 1t appears, that