The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-07-16

u Your NesgAber's Dsg Annoys Ye1
Don't Venture 70 Ktn IL.
kkYF that dog don't stop his barking
I'll stop II for him with = dose Of
poison"
That is the dire threat which q North
side woman made last week 10 q carpen-
ter who was doing . Job Of repairing on
her house. The dog in question belongs
TO her next-door netghbor. It IL a youth
full dog, and il not yet accustomed to the
etiQuet OF city lie. Frequently II wakes
the midnight echoes with vociferous COM
plants against an unkind providence. No
doubt she finds the dog a nuisance.
AT the same time, IL IL not probable that
the good woman knows that II she should
carry her threat into execution the doors
of the Illinois state penitentsary at Joliet
would be yawning to receive her.
Ever since 1874 there has been law on
the statute books which provides that any
body who shall expose any poisonous sub
stance with the intent OF taking the life
OF any domestic animals. said animal be-
ing the property OF another shall be sem
fenced to the penitenthry for not less
than one nor more than foy ars or
shall pay . fine not exceedi. ~ 100. or
both.
The statute applies not only to dogs and
cats. but to horses. cows. chickens and
even canary birds and guinea pigs. Nor is
II any excuse to plead that the poison was
IL the domestic pets OF a neighbor had not
been trespassng they would not have got
ten II. The law makes no such dietinc-
tons. 1t Is sufficient. under the statute.
that the poison was exposed with the In
tention OF causing the death OF the animal
in question. II an animal trespasses the
aggrieved party has his remedy at law.
t. nyf rcd % t0tr f7tN
his own hands. For the benefit OF farmers
and sheepgrowers one exception Is made.
II your sheep are being worried and killed
by dogs the law says that you may use
poison or any other means for their de-
struction.
While II II true that there have been
more convictions Under the statute In tho
rural districts than in the city, there are
still many instances where city residents
who have attempted to rid themselves Of a
dog or other animal have been obliged to
pay the penalty.
One OF the most recent cases which have
come before the attention Of the criminal
court 10 that OF a woman living at Lee
mont. She had a garden In which were
planted lettuce and other spring vegeta-
bles. Her next-door neighbor had fne
flock OF hens. which were allowed to run
at large. The chickens developed a healthy
appetite for vegetables, and made the life
Of the gardener miserable for weeks. The
time she did not spend In shooting the
hens of her premises was spent in watch
ting for them to come back again. She
made repeated complaints to no avail. Fin
ally she could stand It no longer. She
prepared and put out in her own garden
some tempting Paris green sandwiches and
waited results The results came sooner
than she expected. An officer appeared
and served a warrant charging her with
malicious mischief. Despite the fact that
she Is 81 years old she was taken before
a justice and bound over to the grand jury.
II was probably only her great age which
eaved her from more severe penalty, her
lawyer finally securing her release on a
writ Of habeas corpus. The trouble. humil-
iation and expense 10 which she was put
are sufficient, however. to demonstrate
that the law looks upon domestic animals
as Of sufficient importance to be guarded
by rigorous restrictions.
A, the state attorneys ONCE It was
said that convictions under the Law reiat-
ing to the poisoning Of domestic animals
are Of somewhat frequent occurrence.
THE law Is explicit and plain." II was
said. People who are disturbed by tho
barking of neighbors' dogs or the noise
made by pet parrots have their remedy,
but II they attempt to remove the cause
OF their woes by poison they make them
serves uaDte 10 a SENTENCE III bHc pctitSh-
tiary Nor. upon examination. does the
law seem unreasonable. In the first place.
to expose poison where a dog. for instance.
can get II might be a source OF danger 10
human life as well. Little children might
possibly eat H. and though they were tres
passing at the time that would be no ex-
cuse IL fatal consequences should follow.
When people are arrested for poisoning
domestic animals they are usually so
coA at ha Dfn-
atty provided that they pay up at once
IL only a fine IL inflicted. Consequently
only few cases have been appealed. In
one OF them man who had been convict
ed OF Islander for saying that his nesghbor
had poisoned his horse appealed the case
The court held that II was misdemeanor
under the law 10 poison a domestic animal.
so II was plainly Islander TO truthsully
charge that such an act had been commit
ted. and the verdict OF the court oeiow
was fully sustained. Chicago Tribune.