Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-01-09
Decision in Dog Case in Favor of De-
PENDANT.
ANIMAL At LARGE WITHOUT 4 TAG
Was Seized and Carried Away by
District Poundmaster.
L EXT OF THE MON

peace, mas entered judgment in favor Of the
defendant in the dog case'' recently ar
gued before him. This was the action in
stituted by Marion o. Burrows against the
District of Columbia to recover for the al
legged unlawful taking and carrying away
of the plaintiffs dog by the servants and
agents of the defendant
The opinion rendered in the case is as
follows:
THE evidence in the case is very con-
fiicting and is difficult to bring into any
kind of harmony, but two things are ad-
mitted by the plaintiff himself and one by
the defendant, which are Of the greatest
Importance. The District admits that the
dog in question had been duly licensed and
that a proper tag as well as a license had
been issued by the collector of taxes. The
plaintiff admits that on the day the dog
was taken by the employees of the District
1t was not wearing any collar or tag, as
required by law. Here the conflict in the
evidence begins. The plaintiff. while ad-
hitting that his yard or lot was open to
the street, claims that the dog, when TAKEN
was upon his premises, and denies as a
matter of fact and law that 1t was run
ming at large upon the streets.
THE plaintiff says the dog was seized
upon his premises, while the employees Of
the District say it was upon the street, and
that when pursued it ran upon the plain
tiff lot and then ran back into the street,
where 1t was finally taken. Without an ex-
tensive review of the evidence l must find,
as between two sets of witnesses. who ap-
pear to be respectable and to a large eX-
tent disinterested, that the dog, while near
or upon the property of the plaintiff, was.
nevertheless. at liberty to come and go as
il pleased upon the public street.
Minus Collar and Tag.
1T was not confined in any way or pre-
vented from straying by chain or fence,
and was not wearing any collar or tag, as
required by the law. The alI-important
question in the case is whether the dog
was running at large at the time 1t was
taken, and whether 1t was liable to be
seized when found running at large with
out its collar and tag, even though the Ii
cense tax had been paid. l do not think
this is question of the keeping of dog
in confinement in the house or upon the
premises of it's owner, and l must hold the
law to mean that If the dog able to go
upon the public street at its will and was
liable to do so, he was running at large
within the meaSing of the law.
THE statute upon the subject provides
that all dogs running at large must be
seized by the poundmaster If they are
without the tax-tag issued by the collec-
tor etc. 1t IS cOntended that this law does
not apply to licensed dogs which may be at
or near the premises of their owners even
without their tags. But if such dogs are
upon the public streets / think they are not
subject to the protection Of the law unless
they are tagged as it requires. The reason
of the requirement of tag and collar is, as
pointed out by the Supreme Court of the
United States, that the owners of the dogs
running at large may be known and iden-
titled, and any damage done by the dogs
may be traced to their owners. This dog
was clearly, in my opinion. within the
meaning of the rule. 1t was at liberty to
go upon the streets and could have inflicted
a m fp w a n inn n c B1
to do, and there was without the tag no
means of identifying his owner.
Confessedly at Liberty.
This Is not case where the owner has
dog confined upon his own premises with
out the collar and tag, but where the dog
though near Its owners house, is confessed
ly at liberty to go upon the street when it
pleases. Grave doubts might arise as to the
right Of the District officers to take a dog
so confined upon private property, merely
because he was without tag, but here. in
leaving the dog at liberty to go upon the
streets without tag, the owner is guilty
OF a misdemeanor and, under another sec
ton Of the law, liable to be fined for SO
permitting the dog to run at large.
A Massachusetts court has held that 'un-
DER the Massachusetts law any person Is
authorized to kill a dog, even If it is
licensed, but is not wearing the collar and
tag provided by law. The act in question
in that case" the justice says is much
more stringent than ours, allowing the
summary killing of unlicensed dogs by any
person. In the Massachusetts case the dog
was upon the street and, while he had
been provided with a collar, as required by
law, 1t was not wearing it at the time it
was killed.
Declaration in Trover.
Questions might arise as to whether the
dog catchers. finding an untagged dog in
the streets. could follow 1t upon its owners
premises without being guilty of civil
trespass. but 1t is enough to say that that
is not the case before the court, the action
being not against the dog-catchers or the
District for trespass upon the freehold but
against the District In trover for illegally
taking and destroying the dog. The decla-
ration in the case Is clearly one in trover
Il ind that as a matter of law and fact
this dog was at the time of its capture
running at large without a tag-that is
he was upon the street or at liberty to he
SO, and l therefore think his capture was
legal.
1t follows, without discussing the other
defenses raised that judgment must be en-
tered in favor of the defendant, and It is so
ordered" - ~
Counsel for the plaintiff has given notice
that an appeal will be taken from the de-
cision rendered.