Los Angeles herald., 1906-04-03
COURSERS LOSE
ONE CONTENTION
HABEAS CORPUS IS DECIDED
AGAINST CLUB
Plea That Killing of Pests, Such as
Hares, Is Legal Is Not Suss
tanned for Reasons
Cited

The first step in the test case brought
by Attorney Wallace Wideman in be-
half of Henry Lyons, secretary Of a
local coursing club, to determine
whether or not coursing could be ruled
against by the local authorities, was
lost yesterday when Judge w. p. James
Of department seven of the superior
court handed down his decision de-
nylng the defendant his liberty on the
habeas corpus proceedings.
The test case was secured by At
torney Wideman several months ago,
shortly after the Arcadia grounds had
been closed by the district attorney.
At that time Attorney Fleming, ap-
pearing for he prosecution, issued a
warrant for the arrest of Henry Ly-
ons The warrant was at the request
of Lyons, who asked that he be ar
rested in order to prove once and for
all whether the coursing parks could
be legislated against.
1t was proposed to fight the case in
the supreme court If necessary, but
Attorney Wideman, hoping to secure
judgment whereby his client would
get a decision without the delay of a
trial, instituted proceedings of habeas
corpus.
Killed as Pests
The cae was argued before Judge
James, and it was contended by the
defense that the complaint named no
public offense and that therefore he
could not be held under arrest by the
sheriff. Wideman stated that the kill
ing of rabbits was not lawful in so
much that it had been ruled by the
higher courts that pests could be killed.
ri raj tC
were pests and that it was for the
benefit Of the public that they be
killed.
Yesterday in denying the writ and
remanding the defendant to the GUS
tody of the sheriff. Judge James hand
ed down the following decision.
Petitioner secured writ of habeas
corpus for the purpose of having de-
termined the validity of his detention
by the sheriff of Los Angeles county
under a commitment issued by q JUS
tice of the peace of Los Angeles town
ship.
"On the 18th day of January, 1906,
a sworn complaint was filed in said
Justices court in which it was alleged
that petitioner, on the 5th day of No
vember. 1905, committed a msdemean-
or in the county of Los Angeles. Upon
this complaint petitioner was arrested
and in default of bail was committed
to the custody of the sheriff pending
trial. 1t is here claimed that the COM
plant filed in the Justices court did
not charge a public offense against pc
titioner A copy of the complaint is
attached to the petition, and it's lang
uage, in that part which is material
to a consideration of the question pre-
sented, is as follows:
Law Makes Restrictions
"'The very broad claim is made on
behalf of petitioner that If the animal
killed belong to class dangerous to
property that the act places no re-
striction whatsoever upon the manner
in which it may be killed.
"This contention cannot be sustained.
"The section last quoted adds not at
all to the rights of the hunted to take
game or the farmer or orchardist to
kill pests destructive to his crops or of
any person to kill those animals which
otherwise prey upon property CT are
a menace to life. That right would
exist in as full a measure whether the
section referred to had been enacted
or not.
Undoubtedly the right exists to
take, capture or kill game birds or
animals where they exist in their wild
state and the means adopted may be
of any kind appropriate to the pur-
pose, but once having effected the cap
ture it becomes the duty of the person
who desires to kill the animal cap
tured not to inflict unnecessary suffer-
ing or needless cruelty.
Cruelty Not Permissible
"To illustrate: Suppose trap should
be set for some well-knoWn pest and
the animal should be found caught by
its foot or leg; suppose then that the
person responsible for it's capture
should take the trap with the animal
in it and suspend it above the ground
and SO leave the animal to die of eX-
haustion and lack of sustenance when
ready means of speedily despatching
the animal was at hand. Could it be
pretended that because he had the right
to capture the animal in the first in
stance and cause its death that he
could not be prosecuted under the law
making 1t misdemeanor to infllct un
necessary cruelty upon an animal?
$50 in this cause, it is alleged that
petitioner having the possession of the
hare caused dogs to be turned upon it,
and that the hare was 'cruelly worried,
tortured, tormented and cruelty killed
by said dogs, etc. 1t is further al
legged that the killing of the hare in
the manner described was caused and
procured by petitioner as a matter of
gain and as q matter of amusement
to spectators. and also as a matter of
gambling by selling pools and making
bets upon the dogs engaged in chas-
IN fnh rff,rr stNN0~ ton