Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-11-20
DOG Law FOR DOG DAYS.
The Legal Rights Of CANNES Set Forth
by Justice Allen.

From Bench and Bar.
While it cannot be denied that dogs have
certain rights and privileges as among
themselves, yet seldom has judge peen
called upon to interpret and ad1udleate
them. This however, has once at least,
been done. as In case officially reported
sofne wears ago Justice w. F. Allen Of the
New York supreme court fifth judicial dis
trict, sought to lay down the rules which
should govern the action of dogs, ana de-
termine when a fight on their part ID per-
missible, jutifable or proper.
Though jurist Of long experience. Jus.
tice Allen admits, on the occasion ed
to, that he had never before been caiieo
upon to administer the law applicable 10
the case OF a dog fight pure and simple,
or a fight in which the dogs, instead OF tne
owners, were the participants. He says:
81 have had occasion to preside upon The
trial Of actions for assaults and batteries
originating in ARRAYS in which the masters
of dogs have borne a conspicuous part, and
acquitted themselves in a manner which
might well have aroused the envy OF their
canine dependents. The branch OF the low.
therefore, applicable to direct conflicts and
collisions between dog and dog Is entirely
new to me, and this case opens UP to me
an entirely new field Of investigation"
Sitting in Judgment over the actions OF
the dogs In question, and consequently be-
ing presumed to have fully familiarized
himself with all the intricate legal princi-
pies which govern such a delicate situation,
this eminent judge, nevertheless, realizing
the magnitude OF the case and the far
reaching influence and Importance of the
principles involved, was constrained to ''ac-
NIT total ignorance OF the code duello
among dogs. or what constitutes just
cause Of offense and justifies a resort to
the ultimate ratio regem, resort to arms,
or rather to teeth, for redress" The
learned judge shrinks he declares, from de-
Gliding whether jealousy is just cause
of war or what different degrees and kinds
Of insult or slight, or what violation OF the
rules of etiquet entitled the injured or Of
Tended beast to insist upon prompt and APP
propriate satisfaction" He is consequently
| most grateful that no nice questions upon
the conduct Of the conflict on the part OF
the principal actors arises in the case
In speaking of the relative merits Of the
fighters and of their certain tnmutabie and
undeniable rights, the same authority con-
tinues: ut is not claimed upon either side
that the struggle was not III oil respects
doglike and fair. Indeed, I was not be-
fore aware that 1t was claimed that any
law, human or divine. moral or ceremonial,
common or statute, undertook to regulate
and control these matters, but supposed
that this was one of the few privileges
which this class of animals still retained in
the domesticated state; that 1t was one OF
their reserved rights, not surrendered when
they entered into and became part of the
domestic institutions. to settle and avenge
in their own way all individual wrongs ana
or any other jurist might write, speak or
think Of the rights Of persons or rights
Of things / have been a firm believer,
with the poet, in the Instructive II not
| semi-dvine right. of dogs to fight; and
with him would say:
Let dogs delight to bark and bite,
For God hath made them so;
Let bears and lions growl and fight
For it's their nature to- "
Touching on the reception which one dog
| may legally expect from another dog when
visited, Justice Allen, repudiating Burlxes
doctrine of Cancellation and the principles
of Sir Thomas More's utopia" as appllca-
BILE to dogs, says: IF owners of dogs,
whether valuable or not, suffer them to
visit others of the species. particularly IL
they go unlimited, they must be content to
have them put UP with dog fare. ana that
their reception and treatment shall be hos
pitable or inhospitable, according to the ma
ture of the particular mood and temper at
the time of the dog visited"
Finally the measure of damages which
the judge thinks proper are stated by linn
as follows: 1.-THE owner of the dead dog
would, 1 think. be very clearly entitled to
the skin. although some less liberal would
be disposed to award 1t a trophy to the
victor, and this rule would ordinarily be .
full equivalent for the loss; and with that,
unless the evidence differ materially from
that in this case, he should be cnntene."
The foregoing Is the law of Wiley agt
Slater. % Barbour's Reports COS. Would
that every dog could read IT