The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1908-10-09

! '>i " " S' viz p'tS5 "hocS WY uSll-
ness inspires The alteration Of the
mistress; to the brag 'possum and
econ dog, for which tie owner will
fight ic imposed upo@; and lastly, to
the ct dog, the playmate of the
American boy, to say nothing Of the
"yallcr dog,' that defics legisla-
lures. or all animals the dog is most
domestic. Its intelligence, doclity
and devotion make it the servant, the
companion and the faithful friend Of
man. The raising and training of
dogs are now pursued by many as
business, large sums Of money are
! invested in them, and they are
bought and sold as other property. In
this State, by statute, dogs are and
have long been taxed as personal pro-
prrty, according TO value and for re-
venue. AS stated in Sallcy VS.. r. r.,
81 S. c., 1871: "What the law taxes
as personal property it will protect
as such.' This legislation is potent
in two ways: ~ IF the common law
rule, notwithstanding the fallacy of
the reasoning upon which it is based,
as applied to present conditions,
should be held Of force in this State,
III the absence Of modification by
| statute, then the statute taxing dogs
rs personal property and valorem and
Tor revenue is Il modification of the |
common law rule. (2) it brings dogs
as personal property, and things Of
valu" within The meaning Of "chat-
t"l>' in our State rs TO simple lar
rrny--Scr 1G0 criminal code, the |
term "rhattcl' including all kinds
Of property except Freehold or
things parcels thereof. and perhaps
rh">"~ in action. I'm the ease Of
Ward v>. State. is Ala.. 1Gl, II Am.
Rep. |. holding that there is no such
property in dogs as makes them the
subject Of larceny. the court was
influenced by the absence Of any sta
tut" m"diiyin" The common law. and
the Fact that dogs were not taxed as
other property in that State. Like
Wise. III the ease Of State W. Doe, 70 |
lnd.. 9. Il Am. Rep, 800, the court,
Whll" h"ldln" dogs not the subject Of |
larceny. said: "If dogs were taxed in
tins State tlndiana) is other proper
~ for revenue purposes. il would be
Il strong circumstance TO show an in
tent on the part Of the legislature to |
abrodgatc the common law rule and
make them the subjects OF larceny
like amy other personal propcrty.' In
the ease of Mullaly vs.. People, Sc, n.
+. '65, strong ease in support Of
h" view Of this court. the court said:
1T can scarcely be supposed that the
legislature meant 10 regard dogs as
property for purposes Of taxation,
amt yet leave them without protcc-
linn from thieves Sustaining our
conclusion. among others arc the fol-
l"win" cases: State vs. Brown, Bax,
-. 10 Am. Rep, 81; Iornsby VS..
Sampson Uowa). 10 l.. II. A., 508,
and Il very able and exhaustive note
ON property rights in dogs, beginning
at page 50'.
,. The circuit court also erred in
h"lding. "thal the intent to steal
goods and chattclS, charged in the
first count, necessarily implies the
stealing of dog, because from a dog
house. The first count did not
charge intent to steal Il dog, but in
tent to steal the goods and chattels
of the pr"ScrutriX in said dog house.
1t Is not necessary Inference that no
chattcl other than a dog could be in
d"" house, as there might have
been other chaltclS there, such for
example. "a collar and chain, block
and chain. vessel for food and water,
&r.. or indeed, any other chattcl the
proprietor might sec fit tn place
therein. The first count cuuld, there
fore. be- sustained rs a court for bur-
%larH. wlthnu, reference T. the 0ucs-
| ll"n whether Il ,lo" is the sub icct Of |
larceny. In indictments for burglary |
with intent to commit larceny, it is
n"c"S>rary I" specify the particular
goods and rhaltcl> the defendant in !
tended to steal. ; Enc. pl. 4 prac.,
'I6. 1t is urged against this tina.
SUrh wan; or specification would |
| prevent the plea Of former acuuittal
or conNlctl"n: but not so for such |
plea is available if the same burglar
Ions breaking and entering is the cs-
| sent io1 inrrn1innt IN h,tb .h,,no,