230 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



we have very many decisions which insist that a 

 dog is property only while within the provisions 

 of the law. Thus, when the law says that a dog 

 must be licensed, or must wear a collar, or must 

 wear a muzzle, if the thing required by law is 

 omitted by the owner in the care of his dog, the 

 animal will not be considered within the protec- 

 tion of the law.^ When the owner fails to comply 

 with the law as to how the animal shall be kept, 

 the law may provide for the summary destruction 

 of the animal. 2 The Vermont statute provided 

 that dogs must be licensed and wear collars. A 

 dog not wearing a collar was pursuing deer, and 

 the owner of the place shot the dog. It was shown 

 that ordinarily the dog did wear a collar and that 

 he was licensed. The court held that the statutes 

 having required the license and collar, the land- 

 holder was justified in shooting and killing the 

 dog, and that no form of judicial proceedings was 

 necessary. Further, that the motive of the killer 

 was immaterial.^ On the other hand, no owner of 

 property has an ownership or property right in the 

 deer on the place during the closed season. A 

 beagle hound does not pursue deer, and the fact 

 that a beagle hound was in the deer preserve would 

 not justify killing him under provisions for the 

 protection of deer.* 



1 Sentell v. New Orleans, etc. s McDerment v. Taft, 83 Vt. 

 E. Co., 166 U. S. 698; Cranston 249, 75 Atl. 276. 



V. Mayor of Augusta, 61 Ga. ■» Zanetta v. Bolles, 80 Vt. 



572. 345, 67 Atl. 818. 



2 Campau v. Langley, 39 

 Mich. 451 ; Blair v. Forehand, 

 100 Mass. 136. 



