The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-08-08
THE STATUS or THE nor.

is there not growing disposition
to disregard the limitations which we
have placed upon those in authority
ana tendency to applaud the doing
OF things which we wish done. regard
less of whether lawful or ,inIawfulqn
asked Justice Lurton. of the United
States Supreme Court, at the meeting.
of the Virginia Bar Association last
week. With peculiar force does this
question appl.' itself to the recent de-
| cision of Judge r. w. Harrison at
Winchester that under Section 1924
OF the statutes of this State relating
to the poisoning, killing manning. or
alshguring horses, cattle or other
| beasts dog is not Il beast within
the meaning of tho statute With
out Knowing much at all about either
the law or the facts OF the case. sew
eral papers in Virginia and the Spar
tanburg Herald in South Carolina
have attacked the decision and Judge
Harrison. arguing that common sense
should have caused him to rule that a
of the statute
These same papers have had a lot to
say about the fine qualities OF dogs,
their value as friends to man, none Of
which has anybody denied.
The Gaze was one in which man
was charged with exposing poison
with intent to administer 1t to dog.
| whose owner sought to have the sup
| posed. poisoner punished. Judge Har-
! rison discharged the prisoner on the
ground that dog was not the kind
| of beast referred to in the particular
statute under which the indictment
was brought, Examination of the law,
\ shows that the weight of authority is
with Judge Harrison
The words OF the statute invoked in
this case are: IF any person malicious
lly administer or expose poison with
intent that it should be taken BY any
horse, cattle, or other beasts of any
person Judge Harrison presented
several valid reasons why the statute
should not be construed TO apply to
NJ
dogs. He knew, as we'll as all others
90 VINO nave read the law relating to
dogs, that there has been from remote
times doubt as to Whether a dog is. in
the eyes of the law. a domestcated or
a wild animal He had this doubt in
mind when he said in his decision,
There is no principle more FIRMLY es-
tablished in our system of law than
that penal statutes. especially those
making acts felones are strictly con-
strued against the State and favorably
to the liberty OF the citizen. M man
incurs penalty unless the act which
subjects him to 1t, is clearly within
the spirit and letter of the statute,
which imposes such penalty There
can be no constructive offences, and
before man can be punished his case
must be plainly and Enthusiastically
within the statute Here, then, was
a statute Of doubtful meaning, and
Judge Harrison simply carried out a
principle of legal construction when
he interpreted it in favor Of the man
'.lwhose freedom was at stake
Again declared Judge Harrison, "a
dog at common law no matter how
valuable. was Considered property OF
the baser sort only. His owner might
J sue for him in a civil court but tho Grim
nal court regarded him as without
value. No indictment would lie for
his larceny. IN Virginia after the en-
actment OF the law against malicious
injury 10 property, in two cases ii
J was held that dog could not he DON
sidered property in the crimina
law, and no indictment would lie 70,
his malicious injury as SUCH