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


Gently rendered Il decision in a ease
concerning Il dog, which furnishes
some very interesting reading.
George Langford was indicted a,
Newbcrry on the charge Of stealing q
dog. Judge Gage granted an order
q'lashing the Indictment on th,
ground that under the old common
law dog had no value as property
and that therefore Il man could mol
be indicted for stealing Il 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 ease the State appeals
from an order uuashing an indict-
mcnt. containing two counts-onc
rhargin" burglary Of Il dog house
wlthiH 200 yards Of and appuntcn-
amt 10 lii" dwelling Of Mary Nichols,
with intent {" steal. &c., the goods
and chatttclS Of Mary Nichols in he
sand dog house: the other court
rhargin" larceny Of dog Of The
valu" Of $40 Of thc proper goods and
shaitcls Of Mary Nichols, then and
there brin" found in the said dog
house. In sustaining the demurrer to
the indictment the circuit court held: :
0) that larceny cannot be committed
OF a dog; ca that the intent to steal
goods and rhaltrIS. charged in thc
FIRST count, necessarily implies the
stealing" Of Il dog. because from dog
house and that the nffrnSc Of burg.
Larry i, therefore. not charged: GU
lHh' II X not compound larceny to
steal Il dog from n dog house, as it,
legged in the second count.
l. That FIRST and principal qucS-
1l"n presented i whether Il dog is the
subject "f larceny. BY the old com
mon law. larceny rnuld net be com.
mit'rd Of II dog The reasons as
signed for this were the bascncss Of
thr nature of such creature; that it
WAS kept for mere whim and pleas
Mrr; that being unfit for food, il was
of n" intrinsic value; that the penal
fy for the felony Of larceny was too
severe to apply for the stealing Of so
Il creature. Bv the
state of 10 George III. ch. l9 (Gcorgc
TIT. was fond Of stag hunting). the
rakln" and carrying away Of dog
WAS made punishable. but not as
larceny. Under the reasoning salts
Factory nj that day. it was larceny 10
Siral Il tame hawk but not larceny TO
steal Il tame dog, although il was
larceny tn steal the hide Of Il dead
dog. Vet by the common law dogs
were held t" be such property as
would sustain an action Of trovrr for
their recovery. Civil remedies were
permitted for injury to or loss Of
dogs. and they would 90 To the exc
cutnr> and administrators as proper
tN. The reason for the outlawrv Of
dogs IN favor of thieves can hardly
be regarded rs persuasive ut this
day and mere. and such crude appli-
cation Of the principles Of the COM
mon law must yield tn common sense.
Thr fitness Of an animal for food is
not the only test Of its value to man.
kind: lis 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 its owner any sort of rca-
son Tor excluding il from the law Of
larceny rs Il thin" of no value. for
amusement has its valuable uses to
man. Neither is il lust to saw Of
the do" that lis nature is so base as
I" rrn'lrr il unworthy Of protection
rs absolute property. for Baron Gu
Nlrr says the doc is the "cnmplrtcSt,
the most singular. and thr most use
ful conquest ever made by man. -
When we are told that the Greeks
and Romans employed dogs in wa~.
armed with spiked collars, and that
t"rlnih was saved by war dogs
which attacked and checked the enc
my until the sleeping garrison were
aroused. we better understand
ShakrSpcarr's Antony when he said.
'try havoc. and let slip the dogs Of
war. We should not let our con-
trr'nt f.r :;I'rr!:killing dogs and o..
dread of hydr"phobia do injustice "a
TIE noble Newfoundland, that bra les
lie water - n>,l,c the drown,
child: I" the ESrumaux dog. the
burden bearer of the Arctic regions