The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-28

he picked up n trail, which he followed
through devious streets paths until
be arrived at the home Of the accused.
There was other evidence against the de-
PENDANT, but this In all that was offered IN
regnrd 10 the dog.
II was insisted on the part 81 the de-
fence that while evidence concerning the
tracking Of human beings by dogs has
sometimes been arted upon by mObs, II
has mover been admitted IA competent in
the courts, except under conditions which
did not exist In this case; that " admissible
at all IL was solely by virtue OF It's charac-
ter IA expert testimony u that no evil
dence was here offered that the dog in the
case was qualified. This latter reasoning
was held to prevail n the rule laid down
that in order 10 make testimony "a 10
tTckinR competent, even whenIt IA shown
that the dog In Of pare blood and OF o stock
characterized 10y ~acuteness OF scent ana
power 81 discrimination, II must also De
possessed 81 these qualities and has been
trained IN the tracking Of human beings.
Referring TO the effect which the admission
Of such evidence IL Liable TO have on u Jury
the Court said:
II IN we'll known that the exercise OF a
mysterious power not po-zeSsad by human
beings begets In the minds OF many people
n superstitiOus awe. like that inspired bY
the bleeding Of a corpse ~ the touch Of the
FiIONFu IlUIutIfIs uliu lDal NhFN ~ W
such an exhibition u direct ~interposition Of
Divine Providence in the aid of human Justice.
The very name by which the animal In called
has u direct tendency TO enhance the inn
pressiveness of the performance. and u
would be dangerous in the extreme TO permit
The Introduction Of such Testimony in "A
criminal case under conditions which did
not fully Justify its consideration m a cir
cumst ance tending TO connect the accused
with The crime.
Judge Gufy wrote a dissenting opinion
in this case and took occasion therein to
express himself most strongly against the
~advisability of receiving expert canine
testimony in the trial Of one charged with
the commission Of IA crime. He said:
Such evidence should not be admitted.
for the reason that the defendant Is not per
mitted TO cross-examine the witness. who in
reality IL the dog. whether he IL the legal
witness or not. | am aware that il has been
held that YOU could prove dying declarations
against the defendant. and il has been said
that he has the constitutional privilege Of
meeting the witness face TO face. because the
party testifying is the one who is reCiting the
dying declarations, but the admission Of
the statement OF trailing by the hound. II
evidence at all. must be upon the supposition
that he took the track at the scene of the
crime and followed IL; but the defendant has
no chance to inquire OF the hound how far
from the place did he really find the trail. or
did he cross any others or find any others.
II a person was tesiifying to having tracked
the defendant from or about the place. he
could be cross-examined upon the subject
TO know whether there was any other track,
and which appeared to be the freshest, and
the size, and whether the trail he followed
crossed or fell in with other trails. Not so
with the dog. lie has had his say and de-
parted There is another familiar rule of
law. that 4. n witness, will not be allowed to
testify that D told him that he saw the de-
PENDANT at the place, or that he trailed him
or "a him goin Z from the scene of the crime.
but it seems to be commended in this case that
A may tell what the dog said about It.
As before in, imated. il seems to me that
the use of the bloodhound properly belonged
to the days of sla very. and of the bloody
criminal code OF the Dark Ages: and. mas
much as the institution of sla very and the code
aforesaid have ceased to exist, the hound
should be relegated to innocuous dcsuetude.