The times., 1899-06-16
JUDGE K1MBALL's STATEMENT
He Writes to the Commissioners on
the Dog Case.

Judge Kimball yesterday sent the fol-
lowing letter TO the District Commission
ers, stating his side of the case in the
controversy between himself and Major
Sylvester, with reference to the authority
of the police in killing dogs. Judge KIM
ball says:
"On the 9th day OF May, 1899, upon an
information filed and prosecuted by the
Assistant Attorney for the District OF Co
lumbia, and in the ordinary course of
the business of the Police Court, l tried
Officer Johnson for cruelty to animals on
May 3. and from the testimony of the six
witnesses produced on behalf of the Dis
trict and the one witness for the defend
ant was fully satisfied that the charge was
made out, and therefore imposed the pen
atty which the case seemed to warrant,
which was at once paid Nothing more
was heard by me with reference 10 this
case until on the 18th instant a reporter
called my attention to an article in the
morning Times, which ! had not seen, al
leging a great controversy between myself
and Major Sylvester about the case, and
asked for an interview. ] refused to say
anything, for ! knew of no controversy
with Major Sylvester, for he had never
spoken to me on the subject or / to him.
From a report in the Star yesterday,
quoting a decision of the Attorney for the
District, wrong inferences can be drawn
as to the actual facts in the case l tried,
and l am. therefore. reluctantly compelled
to make a statement of the true case and
to call your attention to the rather strange
position taken by the District. which, in
the first place, vigorously prosecutes one
of its own officers In the Police Court and
then objects to the act of the judge who,
when he believes the case charged is fully
made out imposes the penalty. If the Dis
trict does not want to prosecute one of its
officers In the Police Court it has the
remedy in its own hands, and cannot be
compelled TO file the charge, for no action
can be taken by the court until the Attor-
ney for the District of Columbia files an
information and prosecutes the case before
the court.
THE case / tried was not the case upon
which the District Attorney gave his opin-
ion. II did not occur between May 15 and
October IS but on May 8. 1t was not the
case of a mad dog or one showing signs OF
madness, or one that had been bitten by
a mad dog, and there was no suggestion
OF madness by anyone. The case was that
the officer killed a female dog which at
the time was in a condition demanding its
being shut up, in place of running at large
on the street The evidence of several
witnesses proved that the mode of killing
was very cruel, and for that fined the Of
ficer. During the trial the claim was made
by the attorney for the officer that he was
justified by an old law in Webb's Digest
for killing dog in that condition, while
the claim was made by the Attorney for
the District that that law was repealed
did not determine that question.
Il have never denied the right of an Of
fcer to kill a dog where the slightest sus-
picion of madness or liability to madness
is suggested | believe 1t is his duty to
kin such a dog in any way possible. and
will sustain him for doing it. but the case
! tried was not such a case, and am sur
prised that anyone should so construe it."