Year: 1873

An Important Legal Opinaen On CANNES,
+ DANDRIDGE, April Z, 1873.
EDITORS CHRONICLE left your city
on Tuesday morning for the town of Dan
bridge, Jefferson county. Col. Jas. r.
Cooke was aboard, bound for the same
place. Landing at New Market, we took
comfortable hack, owned and managed
by a colored man, and set out for our des-
tination. We found the roads in much
better condition than anticipated, made an
easy ascent of Bays Mountain and reached
cambridge in due time.


Upon arriving I found the community
considerably stirred up in relation to dog
suit, which had been argued at some length
by able counsel on Saturday last before
Esquire Holtsinger, and whose decision
was reserved until tonight Tuesday, 1t
seems that Judge James P; Swan, who is
a farmer as well as an able lawyer, had
been annoyed great deal by worthless
dogs, and, ,despairing of any remedy against
their depredations, ordered the manager
of his estate to shoot down every dog that
might be found prowling about. It so
happened that the dog of Mr.. Joseph IL.
Hill was unlucky enough to appear upon
the premises, and the manager in question
remembering the orders he had received,
peremptorily took the life of the animal.
Mr.. Hill, conceiving that his rights had
been ruthlessly dealt with, determined to
invoke the aid of the strong and invincible
arm of the law to protect them. Accord
ingly he brought suit against the plaintiff
in the case for damages, and thus the suit
was Instituted. was present and heard
the written. opinion of the court, and, re-
garding the case as novel one, 1 cOnclud.
ed to send you the written opinion referred
to. Here it is:


THE COMMON LAW VALUE OF DOG.


Joseph H. Hill VS.. James p. Swan.


I render judgment in the cause in which
Joseph H. Hill is plaintiff and James p.
Swan is defendent, in favor of the defen-
dant, and against the plaintiff for costs of
suit, for which execution may issue. 1
render this judgment for the following
reasons, to.wit: There being no statute in
in dog, we have to he governed by the
common law upon the subject, which on
ly allows limited or qualified property to
exist in dog, and which is not in its ma
ture permanent, such as may to-day ex-
ist and tomorrow not exist, dogs being
classed with that class of animals that is
of wild nature and of no intrinsic value,
their value depending altogether upon cir
cumstances. Therefore, tOrecover damages
for the killing of dog, the plaintiff must
prove that he possessed this limited or
qualified property in the dog, which was
not denied in this case. He must also
prove thrt the dog was worth something
to him at the time he was killed. Dogs
being, as said before, of no intrinsic value
and there being no regular market in this
State for dogs as there is for the higher
grade of animals which are used for food,
labor &C., in my opinion it is always ne
cessary to prove the amount of profit the
dog was yielding about the time he was
killed, in order to recover damages for the
killing. A dog may be of some value to-
day and tomorrow be entirely worthless.


WHEN DOG GETS TO BE NO ACCOUNT.


A man may to-day be living on farm
and be the owner Of fine farm dog. To-
morrow, he may move to city where he has
no use for the dog. Right there the value OF
the dog ceases. Not so with horse. Aman
may be farming and own fine horse. He
may moveto city where he has no use for
the horse. The value of the horse does not
cease. Why? From the fact that he can
sell the horse for money. There is an in
market for horses. Not so with dogs, there





dog.


THE VALUE OF a COON DOG WHEN OUT OF
PRACTICE.


It was not shown by testimony, accord
ing to my judgment, that the dog was any
profit or value to Mr.. Hill since living in
town. It is true that he was proved to be
a good coon dog, but he has not been using
him for that purpose recently, as the proof
shows. Mr.. Hills testimony proves the
fact that he never had been offered any
price for the dog. The only quality that
could make the dog of any value or profit
| to Mr.. Hill at the time he was killed was
was shown by the testimony of Mr.. Hill.
| ABOUT GUARD DOGS SLEEPING UP STAIRS
But the question arises, is guard dog in
| cambridge of any value, especially when
| it is kept stairs at night =? The proof does
not satisfy me that it is. Then, if the dog
was no profit or value at the time he wa:
killed, that is, if he yielded no income OF
any kind nor could be sold for anything,
was Mr.. Hill damaged by his loss ? My
judgment is that he was not. Mr.. Hill
testified that he would not have taken
| fifty, dollars for the dog. / believe he swOrt
the truth, but that Is no evidence that thu
dog was worth anything. l might have &
horse that priced very highly. He Nigh
be favorite horse. I might not be will
ling to take three hundred dollars for him


yet, in fact, he might not be worth Ovel
one hundred dollars. Now, if wa


to sue for the recovery of damages fol
the killing Of said horse, l coult
only recover the reasonable marke
value for the horse. His value would moi


be estimated according to my caprice o.


whim. In addition to the testimony re


capitulated above, there was testimOn.
that had tendency to cast suspicion up


OH the character of the dog as to killing


sheep.


DOG OF A SUSPICIOUS CHARACTER.


Although there was no positive proof o


the fact, yet there were circumstance
proved which had tendency to raise sus


picion as to the dogs character. To sun


the whole case up, | render judgmen


against the plaintiff, from the fact that, a


there is no inherent or intrinsic value il


dog according to the common law, yo


must prove special or qualified value


which Mr. Hill, in my judgment, failed
| IL This fhn 7th dav of Anril 1872