Title: STATE EX REL FIELDS v DISTRICT COU
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13140
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 8, 1975

No. 13140 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A STATE ex re1 FRED L, FIELDS, Applicant, DISTRICT C O U R T OF T H E FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , I N AND F O R T H E COUNTY O F LEWIS AND CLARK, and T H E H O N O R A B L E N A T ALLEN, PRESIDING JUDGE, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel of Record: For Applicant : Loble, P i c o t t e and Loble, Helena, Montana Gene A. P i c o t t e argued, Helena, Montana For Movant : Hughes, Bennett and Cain, Helena, Montana Alan F. Cain argued, Helena, Montana For ~ e s p o n d e n t s : Thomas Dowling County Attorney argued and Charles Graveley , Deputy County Attorney, argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: September 23, 1975 3 C i fj - f975 Decided : Filed: ' : !> PER CUKIAM: This i s a pesicion o r .;upervisory : m t r o l seeking r-o annul and s e t a s i d e D i s t r i c t Judge Nat Allen's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, dated July 17, 1975, i n Lewis and Clark County Cause No. 39105 e n t i t l e d "State of Montana, ex r e 1 Thomas F. Dowling, Relator v. Fred L. F i e l d s , Respondent." Ex udrte t h i s Court ordered an adversary hearing with copies of t h e ~ 2 t i t i o n and supporting documents t o be served on t h e respondent judge, t h e county attorney of Lewis and Clark County and the dccorney general. A l l proceedings were stayed under f u r t h e r $ ~ r d e r of t h e Court. A n adversary proceeding was had i n t h a t on the d a t e s e t i o r hrdring, Thomas F. Dowling, county attorney, and Charles A . Sraveley, deputy county attorney, appeared and argued o r a l l y without having f i l e d b r i e f s , responsive pleadings o r i n any man- I I ridr complying with our r u l e s other than t o f i l e a Motion t o &ash" on t h e grounds t h a t t h e application f o r supervisory c o n t r o l l I was not timely". The motion t o quash i s denied. W e therefore look t o the p e t i t i o n and attached e x h i b i t s f o r ,:he C ~ L L s i t u a t i o n . Lewis and Clark County Aistorney Dowling, wichouc n o t i c e t o r e l a t o r obtained an order requiring, among other ihings, t h e summary s e i z u r e of three dogs belonging t o r e l a t o r and requiring r e l a t o r t o appear before Judge Gordon Bennett t o show cause why one of t h e dogs should not be destroyed and t h e I I ocher two dogs should not be confined t o determine t h e i r vicious tendencies". The s i t u a t i o n giving r i s e t c ~ t h i s unusual type of a c t i o n a ~ i d drder was a s follows: Relator had h i s t h r e e dogs chained on h i s own premises. O n June 5 , 1975, t h e body of t h r e e year old l-ieidi Foust was found near the place where one of r e l a t o r ' s dogs, = I ;iberian Husky, was chained. According t o the grandfather of che decedent, who found t h e body, t h e Siberian dog's chain was wrappeJ dbduc he i o r s v 3f che child four t i m e s . A t that ti-me ):elator Fields was absent from t h e scene of the tragedy but had l e f t h i s dogs i n c a r e of another, but chained and cared f o r on uremises where he had a r i g h t t o have them. The t h r e e dogs were seized and placed i n t h e c i t y of 'ieleria dog pound. O n June 1 7 r e l a t o r returned t o Lewis and Clarlc County and consulted h i s attorney. H i s attorney f i l e d a motion I f ro S t r i k e and Expunge, and Alternative Motion t o Quash" t h e order providing f o r s e i z u r e of the dogs. Judge Bennett was d i s - q u a l i f i e d and respondent D i s t r i c t Judge Nat Allen accepted j ~ r i s - ~ i c t ion. Briefs were f i l e d by both s i d e s on the previously men- cioned motions t o s t r i k e and expunge and a l t e r n a t i v e l y t o quash. tespondent Judge Allen denied t h e motions and s e t t h e matter f o r I f hearing upon t h e merits" f o r June 26, 1975. O n June 26, 1975, the respondent judge, from t h e bench, drdered t h e continued confinement of the Siberian Husky dog but ordered t h e r e t u r n of the other two dogs t o r e l a t o r Fields. O n July 1 7 , 1975, the respondent judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law and order. The findings r e c i t e d t h a t the respondent judge had viewed t h e premises and had seen t h e dog. The findings were t h a t r e l a t o r here was t h e owner of t h e dog, t h a t he kept the dog on a 25 foot 11 chain on unfencedUproperty. That the t h r e e year old c h i l d crossed the unfenced property, came within t h e a r c of t h e chain, and t h a t t h e dog k.illed t h e c h i l d by " b i t t i n g ( s i c ) and exposing her trachea". . The respondent court then concluded as a matter of law chat the dog was a "public nuisance1' and a s such was subject t o I 1 "abatement". The respondent court then remanded" t h e dog t o t h e S h e r i f f who he ordered t o "exterminate" s a i d dog [public nuisance] forthwith. iJn t h e sarile day as the order w a s made, ciouney A ~ r o r n e y Dowling, a c t i n g i n a p r i v a t e capacity, represented the. parents of the deceased c h i l d . A lawsuit against r e l a t o r Fields praying f o r damages i n a l a r g e sum has been f i l e d by t h e parents. W e need not develop t h i s f u r t h e r t o observe t h a t probably the most c r i t i c a l evidence a t any f u t u r e proceeding would be the dog. The foregoing r e c i t a t i o n s a r e background only. The question is whether a d i s t r i c t court can declare a domestic animal, I ' 'I confined by chain even i f on unfenced1' premises, a public nuisance1'. ela at or's premises a r e not within the boundaries o i any c i t y o r town. There i s simply no s t a t u t e o r law making che keeping of a domestic animal, a dog, on one's own premises i l l e g a l i n any way. It cannot be without more a public nuisance. Without more, the proceeding below i s held void. That emotions n a t u r a l l y engendered by the t r a g i c death o i l i t t l e IIeidi Foust caused such an a c t i o n i s c l e a r . Yet, t h e r e i s no l a w permitting the seizure and destruction of r e l a t o r ' s dog. A n i n c i d e n t a l b e n e f i t w i l l be the preservation of indispensable evidence f o r use i n the forthcoming a c t i o n f o r damages. The proceeding below i s ordered dismissed and r e l a t o r ' s dog returned t o him forthwith.