Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-09-26
GOELLER GO. WINS
APPEAL AGAINST
CRUELTY SOCIETY
Decision of Newark Court in
Horse Seizure Case Is
Reversed.

For the reason that the statute re-
garding cruelty to animals does not
provide for a notice to the owner of
an animal lmpounded upon the ar
rest of the person in charge of 1t for
cruelty to animals, such notice in
forming the owner of the place of GUS
tody of the ~imP1unded animal, the Su-
preme Court%.n an opinion by Justice
Reed, delivered in Trenton, has de-
clared the section of the set covering
this particular point to e defective. The
ground for the declaration is that prop
process of law.
The decision is in the case of the
Goeller Iron Works of Newark against
Charles H. Carey, which was tried in
the First District Court of Newark,
which court is reversed. Carey ar
rested August Klink, an emplo &c of
the Goeller Company for cruel to
animals and took into custody the
horse which Klink is alleged to have
treated cruelty. The Goeller Company
sought to the horse. but Carey
declined to surrender 1t until the ex-
pense of its care had been paid. The
company questioned the constitutions
ality OF that section of the cruelty to
animals act providing for the sale of
estray animals. The Newark tribunal
declined to pass upon this point.
Company Sues.
The company hen came into the Su-
preme Court to have construed that
section of the act which provided that
when an arrest is made the animal
shall be treated as estray or aban-
doned. and that it shall be delivered
to the local police and cared for, to be
surrendered when expenses of such
care are paid. 1t was held that this
Is unconstitutional because procedure
is not provided for in the title of the
act, Justice Reed declares this con-
tention without merit.
The company also set up that the
method of providing for the sale of
the animal was taking of property
without due process of law, which
claim is upheld in the opinion. On this
point the opinion declares:
THE act provides for the sale of the
impounded property and for the pay
ment of all expenses for keeping the
property out of the process of the sale,
unless the property is reclaimed by the
owner upon payment of such expenses.
The sale is to be upon notice, and so
far the statutory provision is unassail-
able and the property so advertised
may be redeemed by the owner at any
time before the sale upon payment Of
the expenses and costs.
Keep Adds to Expense.
THE statute, however, fixes no time
when the order for the sale and for the
notice for the sale shall be made. The
statute Only provides that the appli-
cation for such order and sale may be
made by the person or official hen
having possession of the property or
by the person who made the arrest
Within what period after the arrest
this application shall be made is not
stated. Therefore. the property may
be ~impounded for an indefinite period
before it is ordered sold, n before
there is any notice whatever to the
owner. During this time the value of
the property is being destroyed by the
expense of keeping 1t, and notice of
the sale of the property, provided by
the statute, becomes of little value to
the owner, If the cost of such keep at
the time of notice has practically alb
sorbed the value of the property.
"For this reason we think the failure
of the stacute to provide for a notice
of some kind to h owner OF the
taking of the property and of its
place of custody is the taking of prop
erty without due process of law. We
think there should be a reversal"