Monroe City Democrat. (Monroe City, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1904-04-28

DOGS IN Law.

Few animals have caused more contro-
versy between neighbors or furnished more
perpleXing problems for the courts than the
ordinary yellow dog.
This is probably due in a great measure to
the nature of the BRUTE" and his rather
anomalous status in law.
Under the common law, which prevails in
this state, except as modified or superseded
by statute, dogs were not regarded as prop
erty so far as to the subject of larceny. They
might be stolen without fear Of a criminal
prosecution, or to be more accurate they
could not be stolen at all because the taking
or dog, no matter under what circum-
stances nor with what intent did not consti-
tute larceny. The law did, however, recog-
nize the rights in the owner and permitted
him to recover damages for any wrongful
taking or destruction of his dog.
DOGS ON DIFFERENT FOOTING FROM OTHER
DOMESTIC ANIMALS.
In 1879, the Missouri Legislature ex-
pressly made dogs the subject of larceny,
thus recognizing them as property, but not
withstanding the statute, they stand on
very different footing from other domestic
animals. Judge Broaddus pointed this out
very clearly in his recent opinion in the
case of Fisher " Badger, 95 App. 289, where
1t is said: "The law of this state recognizes
dog as property and no one has the right
to wantonly and ruthlessly kill him. But
while recognized as property, he Is not re-
garded in law as such domestic animals as
the horse, the OK the sheep and the hog, for
the reason that from his very nature he can
not be subjected to the same conditions of
restraint. II one of these domestic animals
escapes from the owner and goes on the
lands Of a stranger and Injuries his crops, he
may impound it and demand compensation
for his damages. If a dog be found on
ones land, it is not trespass and the land
owner can not kill 1t unless it is necessary
to protect his property"
PRowLING Docs.
Under the common law rule, which still
prevails except as to injuries by dogs to
sheep and other domestic animals, the
owner of dog was in no way responsible
for any damages done by 1t to his neighbors
property unless he knew of its propensities
in that line. The property owner was at
a decided disadvantage. His garden might
be dug up and his sheep killed by prowling
dogs, and the law afforded no redress
against the dogs owner unless he could
prove that the latter was aware Of its bad
habits. Hall V. Van Dever, CT Mo. 1872.
On the other hand, If one undertook to
protect himself with a shotgun, the law
made him liable to damages for every dog
he killed unless he could show that the
killing was reasonably necessary for the
protection of his property from serious in
jury.
The judges seemed to have had decided
weakness for the stray dog and frequently
required about as strong showing of ne
cessity for shooting dog as a man. The
mere fact that dog was prowling about on
another's premises furnished no excuse
whatever for killing him. Live stock or
other property must have been actually or
apparently in immediate danger and the
killing could only be justified on the ground
that 1t was reasonably thought to be neces-
sary under the circumstances. Thus the
court in Morris V. Nugent, 7 P & G. 572, saw
no excuse for shooting a dog after It had
bitten man; nor was the necessity thought
to be sufficiently urgent in Livermore "
Bachelor, 141 Mass. 49, where a dog had
been chased away from running the defend
ants chickens and was shot when he re-
turned to the chicken yard a short time af-
forwards.
SHEEP KILLING Docs.
In 1877, the Missouri Legislature passed
an act, now sections 6975-6, R. s. 1899,
which the Supreme Court characterized as
AN act OF outlawry against sheep killing
dogs"
Under this act dogs might not only be
killed when caught in the act of chasing
sheep and other domestic animals, but also
for recent depredations of this character.
and their owners were made absolutely re-
sponsible for all damages by them to domes.
tic animals regardless Of any question of
knowledge of their bad habits or propensi.
ties for mischief.
1t must be noted, however, that this stat.
ute only covers damages by dogs to sheep
and other domestic animals and only fur.
nishes as justification for their killing on
that ground. In all other cases the common
law rules remain in force
This is well illustrated In the case of
Gillian " Sisson, SO Mo. App. 516, where the
defendant put out poisoned meat in his pas.
ture for the purpose of killing dogs that had
been running his sheep. The plaintiffs dogs,
which were not shown to have been engaged
in any sheep killing were poisoned and he
accordingly brought suit for damages. The