Arizona republican., 1919-09-09
BARKING CHASE
 GETS BULLET FOR HIM
 AND s15 FINE FUR MAN

On account of suddenly discovered lack of corpus delicti, it looked as if the case of the state, at the instance of W. L. Palmer. against Charles Archer, would come to a sudden end in Justice De Souza's court yesterday afternoon. The defendant had been charged with what may be called canicide. though it has probably never been called that, to wit, the shooting and killing of a dog belonging to the complaining wit ness.
 Assistant County Attorney Lewko- witz put Palmer on the stand and soon, in the course of his testimony, in reply to the question whether a certain do- mestic animal belonging to him was living or dead, the next question to be, What was the cause of his death ?' The witness replied that he was still alive. but in a very bad way. He added that it was doubtful whether the veterinary could patch him up.
 This seems to end the case" said the assistant county attorney. But he suggested an amendment to the com plaint so that the defendant would be charged with the mere shooting of the dog. or attempted canicide. The court asked Attorney ]. c. Niles for the de- fense if he would object to the amend ment to the complaint and the im- mediate trial of his client on that, in order that the witnesses who live in the neighborhood of Laveen might be spared another long journey. MT. Niles | consented and the trial continued on 1 the new complaint.
 The complaining witness said that | his dog was a hyphenated animal, Airedale hound. On the night of Sep l tember 2 the defendant drove a truck | by his place. dragging dead horse to place of sepulture on the desert. The | dog ran out and parked at the equine l funeral procession and followed it for some distance. He said he heard some | one in the truck calling the dog as if to entice it farther away.
 ! On the return of the truck, he said | the dog ran out again, and after it had ! followed it about 50 yards he heard a shot. followed by the yelp of the dog which came running back. After an examination of the wound in the left 1 shoulder the witness said he started out in his car and overlook the truck He said that the defendant admitted the shooting. The witness was corrob-
 orated by a man who was working | for him and by Mrs. Palmer.
 The story of the shooting told by the defendant did not vary in it's general aspects from that of the complaining 1 witness though it differed materially ! in detail. He denied that anybody in
 the truck had called the dog He said 1 that a man riding on the running board on the outward trip had been obliged
 to get into the cab, possibly to avoid being bitten. He said that the dog had a habit of running out at passing ve- | hicles. He was corroborated by Mrs Archer and a MT. Miller who were also
 in the truck that night.
 i There were several others on both
 sides who might be called character
 witnesses, to determine the reputation of the dog. But new rule was ap- piled excluding hearsay evidence which is the only kind admissible in investi. gations into the regulations of human beings. The burden of the evidence seemed to be that the dog was giver ' to running after automobiles, though
 not after other vehicles or pedestrians l It was not brought out that the anima
 was vicious, inasmuch as it did not ap- pear that he had ever gone to the length of biting anybody
 The case was submitted without arg ument, though, with almost Spartan
 fortitude, Assistant County Attorney I Lewkowitz restrained himself from embracing an opportunity to recitt l Senator Vests famous 4Eulogy on g l Dog"
 The court found the defendant guilty on the ground that there was no dang i CT that anybody in the automobile could be bitten. He imposed fine oi
 s15. At first, notice of an appeal was I given, but little later the fine was ] naid and the incident was closed