Norwich bulletin., 1922-02-07
INTERPRETs DOG LAW
IN COURT AT oNEco
Especial to The Bulletin)

- wv ~ ~ o-t11tO /
Especial to The f3ulietfn)
oneco. Conn. Feb s.-The town hall |
was wen filed Monday az IL O'Clock |
when Judge C. B. Montgomery convened |
court as five well known citizens Mary |
Wilcox, 80 years old, James Dixon, p NJ. |
Fred G. Whitford, groceryman, Harry |
Sherman, Charles Burnllam and Thomas
Underwood were one at a time arrested
by Sheriff Frank G. TiEinghast and
brought into court charged with violating
the dog law in various ways The cases
followed a visit of Dog Warden Harry
Lathrop to this town last week and were
five of IL men and women charged with
violating the tag law. One case. Her
bert Anderson, was tried last Saturday.
Mr.. AnHierson pleaded guilty and paid
an assessed costs and fine Of 81 with
out being arrested. The Judge refused
to collect SO fees for the dog warden
from Mr. Anderson.
The dog warden created almost a panic
by shouting and bowling dehantly and
demanded an adjournment Mr.. Tyler
had already pleaded not guilty when the
dog warden with no authority whatever
| and without the grand Jurors consent de-
manded an adjournment. Quickly noting
| the fact that no one was under arrest,
all being there OF their own accord, Jus
tice Montgomery adjourned the courtun-
til next Saturday when Tylers case will
be finished.
| Monday the warrants were served. the
above citizens arrested and brought in
to court.
| Lawyer Thomas NJ. Shields Of Norwich
appeared for several Of the defendants.
| At the court openingLfag Montgomery
said:
TT appears to the cour: that the writ
ten law and its intention are both very
LII sf-+s-
person VINO violates any provision Of this
act shall be fined not in excess Of 81. not
over 80 days in jail or-hoth.
In regard to failure to properly IL
cense q dog the act has most certainly
been violated This court can find no ex-
cuses IN such cases.
In the failure of owner OF the dog to
keep tag securely fastened to the col
lar on the dogs neck. except when the
collar Is lost or in one other case. where
an untagged dog escapes, the penalty
Is the same.
when the tag Is lost, the law pro-
vides that another shall be secured at
the town clerks Office but neglect to say
how long time shall be allowed In
which to secure such tag. The court In
| this case must assume that the fact OF
the dog owner property licensing and
tagging his dog. The tag being lost snd
as soon as he found It out goes for an.
other tag proves conclusiveiy to TIL,
court that the dog owner intends to com
ply with the law.
THE law distinctly makes differenc.
: between the money dog warden shall
secure in two cases. In the first he shall
collect SO. in the other where the dog es
4; capes from a person who keeps 1t In ac
. cordance with the law the fee Is 81 which
5 Is conclusive evidence to this court tina
!; the violation of the law to be punished
. by either fine or Imprisonment must b.
: with criminal intent or criminal negil
. gence.
: THE selectmen are required TO annual
= ly post notices concerning laws in regu
h iation to dogs. This has not been don
here In five years and contradicts tn
threadIbare remark that ignorance o
| the law Is an excuse In this court whel
4 the commissioner Of domestic animal
has failed for five years to see that no
Il tees are posted In this town.
THE evident fact has also been los
:, sight Of IN these cases that the tow
!, prosecutor and not a state Representative
- Of the domestic animal commission Is tn
town prosecutor and has no interes
| whatever IN the dog warden or his 81
y periors only as witnesses in tn ceases"
; Thomas Underwood, guilty Of do
not being licensed, paid s14.s2. Mar
= Wilcox. Fred Stone. Lloyd Mason. Rober
. Dixon. Mrs. Charles Burnham and Harr
Sherman were found not guilty. Arthu
u Lafeur. pleading guilty. paid 1871.
y No casts were allowed the dog warde
e as the Judge insisted, while he believe
D. that the dog warden was entitled TO n
fees. there was no statutory law that a
n lowed him to order the costs paid as
o. the courts opinion the dog should hav
been held by the warden until the 50 wa
"a collected.
u AS the dog warden could not be foun
Is by the sheriff as witness his evident
8 was admitted by the court. grand jurc
le and defendants In every case.
II At o'clock a number OF other ares
x were made