The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1899-05-19

been the subject of good deal Of
Judicial humor and Of judicial learn
ing; but it bears a tiugo of tho
ridiculous to contend that, however
many and however valuable dogs a
man may own, he cannot be made to
pay his debts If ho will only invest his
money in dogs-~a contention which
reminds one of tho very solemn dis Z.
cussions in some Of tho couIts at a
time not worry long past, as to whether
the oyster was wild animal
Before the counts, the dog has re-
ceived q treatment as varied as that
given him by authors. AS illustru
tive of tho widely different light in
which judges have Vowed him,
cito only ono or two cases. Monroe,
j. in 10 Rich. IS. C) 81, indulgcd in
somo vituperi,tivo cpithets upon Il
poor canine who was so unfortunate
rs to be run over by Il railroad train.
On the other hand, in the case of the
State VS.. Hartman, IS Me. 5G2, in
which majority of tho court held
that dogs did not fall within the
CRIMINAL statute Of that state against
the killing or wounding of "domestic
animals" Appleton, G. j., dissonted
most vigorously, making uso of the
following language, (as quoted by
the supreme court of Georgia in Il
case in O3 Ga.): ole is domestic
; animal. From tho timo of the pyra.
mids to tho present day; from the
frozen pole to the torrid zone, wher-
ever man has been, there has been
his dog. Cuvier has asserted that
the dog was, perhaps, necessary for
the establishment Of civilized society,
and that Il little reflection will con-
vince us that barbarous nations owe
much Of their civilization above the
brute to the possession Of the dog.
lie is tho friend and companion of
his 'smastcr-accompanying him in his
walks, his servant aiding him in his
hunting, the playmate of his chill
dren, as inmate Of his house, pro-
tecting it against all assailants."
THE DOGS STATUS IN GEORGIA.
need not stop to discuss the learn
ed dog law evolved by Judges of
other States and countries. Turning
to our own State, | will only glance
hastily at tho status of our own law
with reference to the dog.
At the outset, | may remark that
the argument used with reference to
dogs applies much more strongly to
somo other animals and to birds. 1t
will be readily perceived that lions,
tigers and other wild animals which
are captured ard reduced from their
native State to toe snbjcction of the
menageric, are much less domestic
animals, Or animals in which there is
absolute property, than dogs. SO
likewise birds winch are cntraped and
kept in cages, are much nearer their
wild state than the dog; and yet it
will hardly be contcnded that all the
travelling menageIits Of tho country
are free from levy, or that man will
set up an aviary nd make an excel.
lent living by selling birds, while his
sorrowing creditors hang about his
door with bulif and ii. fa., but
can come no nearer tho deSideratum
of levy than to "listcn to the mock.
ing bird"
If it be urged that there is no ex-
press enactment declaring tho dog to
be property and the subject Of levy,
| wonld suggest that / am unable to
find express enactmcnts making Il
great many other animals which
were originally wild, tho subject of
levS nor am | aware Of any statute
aboishing the light Of common of
pasture, or Of estovers or other simi-
lar ghtS, and yet our supreme court