The Portland daily press., 1899-07-26
THE COURTS.
DECISION RELATING TO LIcENs-
ING OF DOGS

The following rescript has been received
from the Law Court:
FrRnklln, ss
D. Emsry Pratt We. Arthur s. Boody.
Rescript.
strout, J.--Trespass quare clausum for
killing plaintiffs dog. Chapter fs7 OF the
laws II fee3 entitled, IAN act for the
bettsr protection Of sheep. . was approved
on March 20. 1873. aud by its terms was
TO take eject on approval Section re-
quired the owners Of dogs, with certain
exceptions, annually, before the drst
day OF April TO procure license. Soc.
iion imposed penalty for keeping un-
lioen ed dogs... Section provided for a
warrant to kill unlicensed dogs. to to is-
sued By the selectmen OF towns and asses
sors OF plantations. within ten days after
the iifet day Of May. SoctioD 10 required
the mayor of each city and the municipal
officers OF each town or plantation annu-
ally. at least twenty days before the first
day Of April to post notices setting forth
all the requirements of the act with the
penalties for noncompliance.
Dogs were required TO be licensed before
the first day ef April, and II not so IL
cenEsd. were subject to be killed and the
owner to become liable to penalty. Only
two days elapsed from the passage Of the
not before the first day of April. During
that time the laws had not been pub
lished and no general knowledGe Of the
provisions CT the act was possible, nor
could the notice, required.by section 10,
be given prior 20 April /. 1898.
1t cannot be presumed that the legisla-
ture intended TO require impossihilities,
nor to impose penalties upon persons who
vera given no opportunity TO avoid them
by prescribed action. IL must therefore
bs assumed that tbs legislature intended
that the sections of the act relating to
dogs should not take effect In 1853. The
main purpose of the act being the pro-
lection of sheep, oil its provisions In re-
gard to them could and did take effect on
It's approval
Consistency is preserved by holding, as
we do. that the provisions as to licensing
and killing unlicensed dogs we're not in
tended to go into effect until suoh time
had elapsed as would permit compliance
NTH all its provisions in that regard.
As to these, the act became operative in
1894 and not in 1897. 1t follows that the
warrant issued by the selectmen in this
case, In 1853, was unauthorized and affords
no protection TO the defendants who exec
cuted 1t by killing PLAINTIFFS dog. The
parties have agreed that the value Of the
dog was i've dollars.
Judgment for plaintiff for are dollars.
PROBATE COURT.
In the Probate court before Judge Pea.
body, Tuesday there was a hearing IN the
matter OF the win OF the late Amelia H.
Thacher Of Portland. who died last April
in Ayers Mass. Objection ito Btho will
was made by George Il. Cults OF st
Louis, nephew of the deceased, and the
nearest of kin. 1t was claimed that III RS
Thacher was of unsound mind and had
been SO deoresd by the Probate court and
a guardian appointed previous to the date
of the will. Richard Webb, executor Of
the win and testatrix's guardian for Sow
raj years previous TO her death, appeared
for the will, and John B. A.iMerrill for
the contestant. A number OF witnesses
were on the.stand and the case was taken
under advisement by Judge Peabody.
MUNICIPAL COURT.
In the Municipal court. before Judge
Hill. yesterday, wns tried a complaint
against Thomas 3. Griffin on thel charge
Of being o common drunkard. His wife's
sister was the complainant, and two
officers testified as TO his habits of intox-
icatlon. The defense was that it was q
family tight, In which the wife and her
relatives wore at fault.
1t appeared that Mr.. Griffin and his
family and his wife's mother and her
family live in the same house. The de-
fsnse introduced the evidence of neigh
bors and fellow workmen of Mr.. Griffin
who testified to his reputation for indus
try and sobriety.
At the conclusion of the arguments by
William II. Looney for the complainant
and John B. Kshoe for the defense. j udge
Hill found Mr.. Griffin not guilty ami or-
uered him discharged.
In the case OF Sarah e. Glynn VS..
Michael Glynn for support of their min or
daughter, after a divorce between the
parties, Recorder Wheldon yesterday rem
dered verdict for plaintiff, thus sustain
ing the point made by the plaintiff s at.
torney that the husband Is liable for sup
port Of minor children for necessaries
furnished by the mother of the children.
J. B. Kehoe for plaintiff; @ J. Nichols
for defense. The defense appealed.
NOTES.
Arthur p. Slesper. ESQ.,, of this city,
formerly of Freeport, has applied for ad.
mission as an attorney and counsellor Of
the United States courts.