104 



higher courts. In America the owners of domesticated animals 

 have their rights defined by law, but the status of the cat seems 

 to have been determined largely by the opinion of the presiding 

 justice, who may regard it as domesticated or as a wild animal. 



The following is an extract from a newspaper report of a por- 

 tion of the decision of Judge Utley of Worcester in a case where 

 Dr. Dellinger was arraigned for injuring and destroying cats 

 that were molesting birds that he was engaged to care for: — 



A cat is a \\ild animal. There is no wilder animal in Christendom. It is 

 an animal that can't be controlled and you can't tell what it will do when it 

 gets out of its owner's sight. A man on his own property has a right to pro- 

 tect it, and when wild animals encroach on it, he is justified in getting rid of 

 them. I find on the e^^dence presented in this case that the defendant was 

 justified in doing what he did. I don't mean, however, to assert that a man 

 has the right to throw stones promiscuously any place. The defendant is 

 discharged. (Judge Samuel Utley, Criminal Session of the Central District 

 Court, in re Thomas Butler v. Dr. Oris P. Dellinger. " Worcester Evening 

 Post," Sept. 27, 1905.) 



There is a later decision in Maine which is favorable to the 

 cat, but the circumstances were reversed, as the owner of the cat 

 was the defendant. 



The following appears in the " Rural New Yorker:" — 



A man in Maine o^^^led a valuable fo.\ terrier dog which went upon a 

 neighbor's property and chased a cat. While it was doing so the owner of the 

 cat shot the dog and killed it. The dog's owTier sued the neighbor for damages, 

 and won a verdict on the ground that the cat is not a domestic animal and 

 therefore not entitled to legal protection. . . . The cat owner was not satisfied 

 and appealed the case, his lawyer making a long argument to show that the 

 cat is even more a domestic animal than a dog. He succeeded, and the court 

 reversed the lower verdict, which means that the cat owner was justified in 

 protecting his property. He apparently had as much right to kill a dog 

 which chased his cat as he would have in the case of dogs found worrying 

 sheep. 



It will be noted that in both the above cases the owner of the 

 property or his agent were sustained. A man killing another's 

 cat or dog on his own property may have some legal rights that 

 he might not claim in killing it on the owner's property. Mali- 

 cious killing probably would be unlawful also, as it might come 

 under the head of malicious mischief, and cruelty must be avoided. 

 Dr. Henry Hall of Binghamton, N. Y., was convicted June 8, 

 1912, before Judge Albert Hotchkiss of the City Court of Bing- 

 hamton, apparently not for killing a cat, but for failing to kill it 

 and leaving it to suffer. The doctor shot, with a rifle, a cat that 

 was attempting to kill a bird at his drinking fountain, and left 



