Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-01-05

pia1non- They said they lived in the neigh
9 5oa hooa ana That they saw the plaintiffs
uoS taken up by the dog goa chcrS They
further said, on cross-examination. that
they mad not seen the dog in the street and
mat when he was captured he was in the
plaintiffs yard They agreed that the plain-
tiff yard was a large one: that il was nm
mciosed, and that there was nothing TO
prevent the dog from going out into the
street.
In Behalf of the District
The plaintiff here rested his case, and
MI sinclair proceeded to introduce testi-
mony ON behalf of the District The first
witness sworn was Policeman James S.
Bryan, who stated that he was in charge
of the dog-catching crew on the fav in
question; that there We're three coIorei
men with him. He said as they passed
along Wisconsin avenue in front of the
Piaintlfs premises they the plaintiffs
dog out on the sidewalk without a tag.
that two of the men pursued him with nets
on 10 a lot, which the plaintiff called a
yard; that the dog ran over the lot and
pack INTO the street, where they captured
MN The officer admitted that plaintiff
exhibited receipt to him, but stated that
the dog was found in the street, without
a tag, and for that reason 1t was taken
up placed IN the dog wagon and carried
TO the pound. The officer said that when
the dog was first seen by them the plain
tiff was nowhere in sight, nor We're either
of the PLAINTIFF witnesses
ohtcl WAS tllen CrOSS-eXamlned DV
Mr. Poe. Witness was positive that when
the dog was first seen it was on the pave
ment, about thirty feet from the residence
OF the plaintiff. The three colored men
referred to also testified, and their state
ments corroborated the testimony of Bryan
as to the dog being the pavement and
running on to the lot and back into the
street, where it was caught. 1t was con-
ceded that the dog had been killed by the
poundmaster because of the failure of
plaintiff to pay 81 and take it out
Arguments of Counsel.
No further testimony was offered on
either side and counsel proceeded to argue
the case. Mr.. Poe claimed the dog was
taken In the yard of his client and the
action Of the dog-catchers was contrary
to law. He quoted from the dog law
showing that dogs had been made personal
property by act of Congress, and insisted
that inasmuch as the plaintiff had pur-
chased the tax tag the authorities had no
right to interfere with his dog, especially
since, as he claimed, the animal was not
running at large" when caught.
Justice Church at this stage suggested
to Mr.. Poe that this was the pivotal point
in the case, whether the dog. In contem-
p!ation of law, when captured, was run
ming at large After dlating upon this
point Mr.. Poe submitted the case as far
as his client was concerned, claiming that
he should be awarded at least $50 as
damages.
Mr. Sinclair followed Mr.. Poe, claiming
that the action of the dogcatchers was
legal and entirely proper He quoted at
length from the so-called dog law passed
by Congress June 49, 1878, giving the
poundmaster the right to seize all dogs
found running at large without tag. The
act of Congress provides follows:
There shall be levied a tax of 50 each
per annum upon all dogs owned or kept in
the District of Columbia: said tax to be
collected as other taxes in said District are
or may be collected"
LNnI1D Ij,,,r ha fpr nn1I tho
tax and the method of keeping the records
there Is provision which authorizes the
poundmaster of the District of Columbia
during the entire year to seize all dogs
tag issued by the collector and to fmpound
the same; and if, within forty-eight hours,
they are, not redeemed by the owners
dogs shall be sold or destroyed, as the
poundmaster may deem advisable. Any
sale made by virtue of this provision shall
be deemed valid to all intents and purposes
in all the courts Of the District of Column
bia.
Section of the act provides that any dog
wearing the tax tag hereinbefore provided
for shall be permitted to run at large in the
District Of Columbia, and shall be regarded
as personal property in all the courts of
said District.
1t is made the duty under section 8 of
any person owning or possessing dog, ito
place or cause to be placed and kept,
around the neck Of such dog, a collar, on
y" SHdl ne AidThcu anu engraved, IN
legible and durable characters, the name
of the owner or possessor, and the letters
ID. c. and to which collar must be at
tached the insignia or tax tag furnished by
the District tax collector, in accordance
with the first and second sections of this
law, under the penalty of not less than IS,
nor more than $10.''
Mr.. Sinclair argued that the plaintiffs
dog was found running at large without
the tax tag" and that, therefore, the ac-
ton of the authorities in taking, impound-
ing and destroying the dog was in every
sense lawful. He insisted that the term
running at large" does not require that
the dog should be in perpetual motion or on
! dead run, but that 1t means at liberty.
free or unrestrained in movement. uncon-
fined
Counsel for the District read at length
from the opinion of Justice Brown of the
Supreme Court of the United States. in the
case of Sentell agt. New Orleans Railroad
Company That case was an action insti-
tuted by Sentell in the civil district court
for New Orleans, to recover the value of a
Newfoundland dog. alleged to have been