Evening star., 1901-10-30
DISTRICT GETS VERDICT
THIRD TRIAL OF A SUIT ALLEGING
DAMAGES.
Marion o. Burrows Charged Illegal
killing OF His Dog by the
Pound master.

The case of Marion 0. Burrows against
the District of Columbia, finally disposed of
yesterday, as stated in The Star, when JUS
tlce Barnard of the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia ruled in favor of the
District was originally instituted Decern-
Der 26, 1899, to recover $500 for the alleged
unlawful killing of the plaintiffs dog by
the District poundmaster. The justice of
the peace to whom the issue was first sub
mitted gave judgment in favor of the Dis
trict.
The plaintiff appealed from this decision
to the Supreme Court of the District, in
II, l9oo, before Justice Cole and a jury,
this trial resulting in verdict in favor
or the plaintiff for $50 damages.
A motion for new trial was filed in be-
half of the District, and in June, 1900, the
motion was granted by Justice Cole, who
held that the District was not liable for the
acts. negligence or misconduct of the
poundmaster: that he is not an agent of
the municipality. but is engaged in the per-
formance of strictly public duty; that the
office of poundmaster is adjunct of the
health department; that his duties are Gre
ated and defined by act of Congress and
not by the District Commissioners, and are
similar in legal effect, to the duties Of
police officers and firemen, for whose un-
lawful or negligent acts municipalities are
not responsible.
Plaintiffs Statement.
The plaintiff at the trial yesterday stated
that he resides on Wisconsin avenue in Ten
leytown; that the 10th of December. 1899, he
was the owner of a black and tan dog, half
rat terrier and half hound, and Of the value
of $500. He stated that he had purchased
the required tax tag from the collector Of
taxes. for which he paid 81, but further
stated that the dog never Wore the tag at
any time.
Continuing the plaintiff informed the
court that the 18th of December, 1899, while
his dog was upon his own premises, the
dog catchers came thereon and seized it,.
while the animal was conducting itself
within the boundaries thereof in peaceful
manner. He admitted, on cross-eXamina-
t1on that his premises We're unincloSed; !;
there was nothing to prevent the dog from
going upon the street; that it was not con-
hned in any way or prevented from stray
ing by chain or fence. The plaintiff also
admitted that he was not watching or pay
ing any attention to the dog at the time of
his capture by the dog catchers.
One other witness gave evidence corrobo-
rative of the plaintiffs statement.
Court Grants Motion.
The plaintiff rested his case at this point,
whereupon Attorney A. L. Sinclair, who
appeared for the District, moved the
court to direct the jury to return a verdict
in favor of the District on the ground that
at the time the dog was taken by the
poundmaster's agents it was in legal con-
temptation, running at large without the
necessary tax tag.
After argument Justice Barnard granted
the motion and stated that in his opinion
the dog was running at large" without
the tax tag, within the meaning of the
so-called dog law and that he considered
it his duty to direct the jury to find in
favor of the District.
The court stated that the object of the
c n nfIltn ,Nrof fo1tc 11h;lI
others from biting dogs, and that the tax
tag was required to be placed on the ami
mails in order that the owners of dogs
running at large might be known and
identified, and amy damage done by them
might be traced to their owners
What Running at Large Means.
The court, in conclusion said that run
ming at large" meant without restraint or
confinement, whether upon the land of the
owner or elsewhere; that according to the
testimonytof the plaintiff there was nothing
whatever to prevent the dog in question
from going into the streets at will
This decision, it is said, finally dsposes Of
the