The Lancaster news. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1905-current, 1908-10-07
JUDICIAL TRIBUTE TO THE DOG.


through thick and thin, alike in
prosperity or adversely, and
when all others desert him, at
last knows "where he is at" in
South Carolina. The Supreme
Court has recently rendered a
decision which not only fixes his
status in this State beyond all
peradventure, but adds new dig
nifty and Importance to the noble
animal. 1t appears that man
was indicted in Newberry on the
charge OF stealing dog. The
Indictment was quashed by the
presiding Judge at the trial,
Judge Gage, on the ground that
dog hal no value as property
under tire old common law. An
appeal was taken by the Safe
to The Supreme Court, which
tribunal reversed the judgment
OF the Circuit Court. The opin-
ion was written by our distin-
guished fellow townsman, AsSo-
ciate Justice Ira b. Jones, and
as it is unqueslionably the ablest
dissertation on dog that has been
penned In many a day, we re-
produce at least a part of it, as
follows
The first and principal question pre-
sented is whether a dog is the subject
of larceny. BY the old common law,
larceny could not be committed of
dog. The reasons assigned for this
were the hasencsS of the nature of such
creature; that was kept for mere whim
and pleasure; that being unfit for food,
ii was OF no intrinsic value: that the
penalty for the felony of larceny was
too severe TO apply for the stealing of
so contemplate creature. by the
state of 10 George Ill, ch. Is George
III. was fond of stag hunting, the tax
ing and carrying away of dog was
made punishable, but not as larceny.
Under the reasoning satisfactory AT that
day, it was larceny to steal "A tame
hawk, but not larceny TO steal tame
dog, although it was larceny to steal
the hide of dead dog. Yet by the
common law dogs were held to be such
property as would sustain an action of
trover for their recovery. Civil RENE
dies were permitted for injury to or
loss of dogs, and they would go to the
pNpcutOrS and N ,,o,,
erty. The reason for the outlawry of
dogs i'll favor of thieves can hardly be
regarded as persuasive at this day and
here, and such crude application of the
principles Of the common law must
yield to common sense. The fitness of
an animal for food is not the only test
OF its value TO mankind: 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
ana pleasure of its owner any sort of
reason for excluding it from the law of
larceny as n thing of no value. for
amusement has its valuable uses to
man. Neither is il just to say Oft the
render it unworthy of protection as abb
solute property, for Baron Cuyier saws
the dog is the "completest. the most
singular and the most useful conquest
ever made by man" When we are
told that the Greeks and Romans en-
ployed dogs in war, armed with spiked
collars, and that Corinth was saved by
war dogs which attacked and checked
the enemy 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 contempt
for sheepkilling dogs and our dread of
hydrophobia do injustice to the noble
Newfoundland, that braves the water
to rescue the drowning child: to the
EspuimauN dog, the burden bearer of
the Arctic regions; to the sheer dog.
that guards the shepherd hocks and
makes sheep raising possible in some
countries; to the ST. Bernard dog.