Milford chronicle., 1906-05-11
LEGAL STATUS OF DOGS.
II Registered According to State Law
They Are Personal Property.

Following is the text OF the charge oi
> the Superior Court Of Kent county, de-
t livered by Judge Boyce, in the case Of
= Robert T. Harrington VS.. William E.
: Hall, involving the question of personal
property in registered dogs:
The plaintiff brought an action Of trespass
4 against the defendant for an alleged malicious
shooting and killing Of bis fox hound, and be
seeks 10 recover for his loss Occasioned there
t by.
The plaintiff claims that his dog was trained
: to hunt foxes and that be was valuable; and
' that on the occasion when his dog was shot
and killed he and some neighbors, with their
dogs, were in pursuit OF fox, and that when
the dogs we're in the chase, crossing the field
ofthe defendant in this county, the defendant
himself. or his son by his direction, shot and
killed the dog Of the plaintiff while in the
field OF the defendant. The defendant admits
that his son did shoot and kill dog in his
field on the day as alleged by the plaintiff,
but be denies that he commanded his son at
the time to shoot the dog
He claims that previously to the time ofthe
alleged shooting a large number OF turkeys
had been killed by dogs and that for the pro-
lection Of his fowl he had posted notices on
his farm forbidding trespassing by dogs or
hunters, and that at or about the same time
he had given directions to both his son and
hired servant to shoot dogs trespassing upon
his premises. The son Ofthe edefendanta limits
that on the day on which the plaintiff claims
his dog was killed he did shoot and kill a fox
hound, when in the act of killing turkey in
a flock belonging to and in the field Of mis-
father, the defendant, but without knowing
then or now whose dog IL wss.
The defendant claims that he was in the
field nearby apd he shortly thereafter carried
the turkey, which he alleges was killed by the
dog, to bis house.
At common law, the owner Of dog might
maintain a civil action for the unlawful In
jury, thereto or killing thereof There is,
however, in evidence before you, and uncon.
trsdicted, that the plaintiffs dog was regis
tered under an act o. Assembly at the time
when IL is alleged he was shot and killed said
act being Chapter 4S, Volume XVI, Laws Of
Delaware, and II you find that the dog was at
the time Of the killing so registered, he was
the personal property Of the owner, and as
suck was the subject Of larceny. And any
person unlawfully killing a dog registered
under said act would unquestiOnably be liable |
to the owner thereof for the value OF the dog. |
person may not maliciOusly injure or
=
ises, and the posting of notices against tres
passing by dogs will not therefore excuse or
justify an unlawful killing Of a dog found
upon the premises.
The remedy against such tresspassing is, IN
a proper case, against the owner Of the dog.
The defendant iustifies the killing Of a dog
(whose owner he alleges was unknown to him)
on the day in question, because, as he claims,
the dog was at the time OF the shooting in the
act of killing one Of a flock of his turkeys
then upon his premises. We say to you that
If you find, under the evidence, that the de-
fendant himself or his son. under the fathers
directions, did kill the plaintiffs dog under
such circumstances, IL was justidable and the {
plaintiff would not be entitled to recover.
For If the dog was upon the land ofthe defen-
daRt in the act Of destroying his turkeys, the
defendant was justified in killing him. If, :
however, you found that the plaintiff owned
the dog and the latter did not so attack the
turkeys, but was running across
the field of the defendant in pursuit Of fox, I
or was merely trespassing upon the premises :
Of the defendant, then, If the dog was killed 4
by the defendant. or by another by his direc- q
ton, it was an unlawful killing and without
and your verdict should be for /;
the plaintiff
II you find that the dog was killed by the 4
son Of the defendant, either under the general {
Dr. special direction of his father, then the act =
Of killing was, in contemp plation Of law the
act Of the defendant. Whether the dog, which, c
{ is admitted, was killed, was owned by the q
plaintiff, you will determine from all the facts a
ind circumstances surrounding this case as q
estified to by the witnesses. Z
You are the exclusive judges of the testi- h
nOny. To entitle the plaintiff to recover yCu 1,
must be satisfied that his dog was killed. I,
that he was killed either by the defendant or 8,
lnder his direction and that he was killed a
and without justification; and
We submit these questions Of fact to you for n
TOur determination. When there is a conflict "
n the evidence upon any material point. It is Al
our duty to reconcile IL if you can. and fit IL
irreconcilable you shoula accept as true ss
uch evidence as you believe is most entitled
c credit, taking into consideration the char. W
cter of the witnesses, their apparent fairness II
nd accuracy, their disinterestedness and all n
be other circumstances of the case as dis oe
losed by the evidence. in
II you find for the plaintiff, we say to you sa
hat we do not think under all the facts Of nc
MS case, it is a proper case for punitive or az
xemplary damages, and your verdict in that Oh
vent should be limited to the value of the ar
og, which you will determine from those Al
illnesses who gave testimony as to the value cI
the same. nj
You will now take the case and give It your In
areful and conscientious consideration and n,
etermine it upon the evidence produced be- or
ire you without regard or consideration for n,
le parties to the SUIT, and render your YER
lot for that party in whose favor the evidence ho
'ems to preponderate. Doing that you will an
ave fully discharged your duty in this case. ~
Verdict for the plaintiff for $50, with tb,
)sts, which were $126. % for court pl'
larges making the costs including wo
WY er fees, $4,000; which Mr.. Hall on' so,
aid promptly, and thus established ev,
lie legal status of dogs. gle
-S to
MT. MORIAH. tai