The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-09-21

or seventy persons. It was held that upon the strength of the evidence as to the nature and training of the dogs the testimony was admissible.
 In Ohio the question came up in the trial of Thoma1 Hall for burglary, 8 Ohio N. P. 125. On the day following the burglary basket filled with part of the stolen property was found in a freight yard not far from the place which had been robbed. IA witness call ed by the State declared that he was the owner of a nine-year-old blood hound which had previously been put to severe tests and had proved his ability to trail. He had started on the track of persons who had set off on foot from twenty to forty hours ahead and had successfully trailed them. He had been testsd in following tracks from places where crimes had been committed, and in a number of cases persons trailed by the dog had con l fessed.
 Immediately upon the finding of the basket this hound was put on the scent. He started off with all the acts and indications of trailing, and finally brought up at the front gate of the house in which the defendant lived. It was the opinion of the court that, whatever might be said of the wisdom or humanity of resorting to this means 1 of detecting and securing the appre- l hension of criminals, there could be no i doubt that, where a well trained dog is placed upon a recent track and follows it in the usual manner of the hound, these facts may be shown as tending to connect the defendant with the crime charged.
 l A case in which testimony as to trail- ing was ruled out Is that of State vs. Moore, North Carolina 55 L. R. A. 96. There it appeared that a grocery store had been robbed Several supposedly guilty parties were taken into custody and one of the crowd turned States evidence. His testimony, however was
 weakened by it's being shown that he
 was the only one of the number in whose possession any of the stolen property was found
 It was also proved that Mr. Laugh
 irghouse, the magistrate before whom
 he was taken for trial in the first in- stance, gave him whiskey and pfomis-
 ed to turn him loose if he would tell on
 the other boys and that the prosecut-
 ing witness gave him ten cents and
 agreed to give him a still greater sum
 if he would stick to what he had
 sworn to in the magistrates court. The
 State then introduced witness who
 was permitted to testify as to the "con-
 duct of dog called bloodhound" He
 said that the dog was brought to the
 stors on the day after 1t had been rob-
 bed After smelling around various
 parts of the store and going out into
 the street the dog returned and bayed
 two of the defendants separately, they
 being upeA the footed premises at the
 time with the apparent lawful purpose
 of offering suggestion as to how the cr!mTa' might be caught. The appel
 late court held that the evidence should
 not have been admitted, the reason be- ing that the suspected persons had been upon the premises after the robbery
 Rad taken place.
 The case of Predigo Vs. common
 wealth, Kentucky, A S. W. Rep 143, fuTiehes another authority in support
 of the proposition that the ability of
 the hound must be established in order to render competent testimony as to hls conduct in trailing one accused of
 crime. In this proceeding Walter Pre- : 6igo was indicted upon a charge of arr son and found guilty. At his trial a
 witness was allowed to testify that up- on being informed of the fire and its pribahle inctpdiary origin he telegraph cd to ne'ghbrins town for his blood
 hound, which upon arrival was taken to the rear of the ruined building, where in a short time he picked up a trail, which he followed through devil 2 ous streets and paths until he arrived
 at the home of the accused There was other evidence against the defendant, but this is all that was offered in re- gard to the dog.
 It was insisted on tEe part of the defense that While evidence concerning the tracking of human beings by dogs
 has sometimes been acted upon by mobs, 1t has never been admitted as competent in the courts. except under conditions which did not exist in this case; that if admissible at all it was solely by virtue of its character as ex- pert testimony and that no evidence was here offered that the dog in the
 case was qualified. This latter reason
 ing was held to prevail and the rule laid down that in order to make tes- timony as to tracking competent, even
 when it is shown that the dog is oi . pure blood and of stock characterized by acuteness of scent and power of determination. it must aleo be estab- !ished that the dog in question is pos sesed of these qualities and has been
 trained in the tracking of human be-
 lngS Referring 70 the effect which the admission of such evidence Is liable to : have cn a jury the court said: "It Is well known that the exercise of a mysterious power not possessed by human beings begets in the minds
 of llany people a superstitious awe, like that inspired by the bleeding of a A