The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1908-10-09
SUPREME COURT ON DOGS.
* = x * x x X !: x i

Ine State supreme court LAS IT,
Gently rendered a decision in case
concerning dog. which furnishes
some very interesting reading.
George Langford was indicted at
Newberry on the charge Of stealing a
dog. Judge Gage granted an order
quashing the indictment on the
ground that under the old common
law a dog had no value as property,
and that therefore a man could not
+be indicted for stealing a dog.
The supreme court has reversed
this ruling and sent the case back for
trial. The decision was delivered by
Justice Jones and is as follows:
In this case the State appeals
from an order quashing an indiet-
ment, containing two counts
charging burglary Of a dog house
within 200 yards Of and appunten-
ant to the dwelling Of Mary Nichols,
with intent to steal, &c., the goods
and chatttels Of Mary Nichols in the
said dog house; the other count
charging larceny of dog Of the
value of $40 of the proper goods and
shattels Of Mary Nichols, then and
there being found in the said dog
house. In sustaining the demurrer to
the indictment the circuit court held:
(1) that larceny cannot be committed
of a dog; (2) that the intent to steal
goods and chattels, charged in the
first count, necessarily implies the
stealing Of dog, because from dog
house and that the offense Of burg
larry is, therefore, not charged; 81
that it is not compound larceny to
steal dog from a dog house, as al-
legged in the second count.
1. That first and principal ques-
tion presented is whether dog is the
subject Of larceny. BY the old COM
mon law. larceny could not be COM
mitted of a dog. The reasons as
signed for this we're the baseness Of
the nature Of such creature; that it
was kept for mere whim and pleas
ure; that being unfit for food, it was
of no intrinsic value; that the penal
ty for the felony Of larceny was too
severe to apply for the stealing Of so
contemplate a creature. By the
state of 10 George III, ch. 18 George
III. was fond of stag hunting), the
taking and carrying away Of a dog
was made punishable, but not as
larceny. Under the reasoning salts
factory at that day, it was larceny to
steal tame hawk, but not larceny to
steal tame dog, although it was
larceny to steal the hide Of a dead
dog. Yet by the common law dogs
were held to be such property as
would sustain an action Of trover fer
their recovery. Civil remedies were
permitted for injury to or loss Of
dogs, and they would 60 to the exc
cutors and administrators as proper
ty. The reason for the outlawry of
dogs in favor Of thieves can hardly
be regarded as persuasive at this
day and here, and such crude appli-
cation Of the principles Of the COM
mon law must yield to common sense.
The fitness of an animal for food is
not the only test of its value to man.
kind: its capacity for useful service
in other ways is often the real test
Of value. Nor is the fact that an
animal is kept for the whim and
pleasure Of it's owner any sort Of rea-
son for excluding it from the law Of
larceny as a thing Of no value, for
amusement has it's valuable uses to
man. Neither is it just to say of
the dog that its nature is so base as
to render it unworthy Of protection
as absolute property, for Baron Gu
vier says the dog is the "completest,
the most singular, and the most use
full conquest ever made by man."
When we are told that the Greeks
and Romans employed dogs in war>
armed with spiked collars, and that
COrinth was saved bv war dogs
which attacked and checked the enc
my until the sleeping garrison were
aroused, we better understand
'Shakespeare's Antony when he said,
'"Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs Of
war;" We should not let our con-
tsrlnt f..r 5heeckilling dogs and Oh:
dread of hydrophobia do injustice to
tie noble Newfoundland, that braves
the water 20 r.S.ue the drownl,,
{lo