The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-01-05
THE BURROWS DOG CASE
Alleged Illegal Capture of Valu.
able House Pet.
A Suit to Recover Damages for nm
Act of the District Dog Cntchcrs-
Flea Advanced Tint the Animal
Was Forcibly Driven From Its
Owners Premises No Decision.

The case of NJ o. Burrows against the
District of Columbia, involving the loss of
valuable dog, was tried yesterday before
Justice of the Peace John f. Church. Mr..
Burrows dog was captured some weeks
ago by the District dog catchers, being
subsequently shot, and the suit before the
magistrate was Instituted TO recover dam
ages. The compliments plea in the case
was to the effect that the dog was forcibly
and unlawfully taken from the premises
of its owner, and was not running at
large
Mr.. Burrows evidence showed that the
dog was on his premises or on an adjacent
lot when chased into the street and cap
;ured. Under cross examination the facts
we're brought out that the dog did not
wear tag when caught. and that the
plaintiff was not present at the time of the
capture.
Mr.. Burrows further stated that he went
TO the poundmaster and showed his license
for the animal. which had been obtained
only a few days before. Mr.. Burrows also
stated that the poundmaster refused 10
give up the dog or to allow the owner TO
redeem it. An Intellectual appeal was then
Burrows producing his license and attempt
ing TO obtain an order for the recovery of
the animal
Other witnesses who testified in behalf
of the complainant were James Willet and
Philip Houser. Their evidence corrobo-
rated that of the first witness, as TO the
manner in which the animal was taken.
They also testified that the dog was
kind and harmless household pet.
III
of the dogs capture. was called TO testify
for the defence. His evidence showed that
the dog catchers acted within their legal
rights.
Joseph Burrow followed He. with W
7. Young and Owen Washington. caught
the dog and carried II to the pound Bur
row stated that they found the animal on
vacant lot without a tag. The dog very
naturally ran OFF as the catchers ap-
preached. and they gave chase. He sought
refuge first in Mr. Burrows front yard
but ran out again as the dog cstchers ap-
preached, and was caught with the net in
the street some distance from the house.
The evidence Of Burrow was corrobor-
aied in every particular by Young and
Washington. his associates
The main point at issue in the case as
brought out by the arguments of counsel. :
was whether the dog. when taken. could
be regarding as running AT large" within
the meaning OF the law. Statutes bearing
on the case were read and the question was
argued at considerable length. Mr. Poe
counsel for The plaintiff. urged that the
term running at large could not apply TO
a peaceable dog that was not dangerous
and had not strayed from his masters
premises. He placed the damages OF his
client at $50 and prayed the court to give
judgment in that amount.
Mr. Sinclair. counsel for the defence.
argued that the dog was running at large,
and was so regarded by the dog catchers.
Mr.. Sinclair prayed for a dismissal of the
case.
After the arguments we're finished Jus
tice Church took the case under consider
aiion, reserving judgment until next Mon
day nj 10 o'clock