LAWS ABOUT DOGS 



peace on such as steal, or knowingly 

 harbor a stolen dog, or have in their 

 custody the skin of a dog that has been 

 stolen." 



3. American Colanial Enactments 



The first formal step in regulating dogs 

 in America is dated 1715 being a provi- 

 sion in the statute of Massachusetts for 

 the killing of unruly and ravenous dogs. 



In 1743, the same province enacted a 

 law justifying the killing of dogs in the 

 act of worrying or injuring sheep and 

 lambs. 



In 1812 the legislature of Massachusetts 

 authorized any perscon to kill any dog or 

 dogs found without a collar bearing the 

 name and residence of the owner. 



A most important decision is found in 

 Bishop vs. Fahy, and based upon a Mass. 

 statute passed in 1858. This decision spe- 

 cifically stated that any law providing for 

 the justifiable killing of dogs does not 

 authorize an entry into a man's house to 

 kill a dog without permission from the 

 owner. 



4. What is the Dog Legally? 



The gratifying tendency of our day is to 

 enact specific laws concerning dogs and to 

 consider them entirely as personal prop- 

 erty, and beyond this, as a particular 

 property of its own kind, inasmuch as it 

 partakes of the nature of its master and 

 owner and inasmuch as it strangely has 

 removed itself ont of the field of the lower 

 or dumb creation and has made a bid for 

 inclusion in what one might term the 

 upper animal kingdom, men and dogs. 



One cannot kill a dog for chasing game 

 across his land (46 Am. Rep. 423). 



In Kansas, District of Columbia, Texas, 

 Tennessee, Connecticut, Indiana, Georgia, 

 Utah, Nebraska and Michigan the dog has 

 been held by the courts to be legal prop- 

 erty (Graham v. Smith 28SE225, Ga. ; 

 40SW126-Ark.). 



Ohio (Sec. 588 of General Code) gives 

 to dogs full property status if the license 

 tax is paid. 



5. No Longer a Beast of the Field 



The opinion of Mr. Blackstone has been 

 an unfortunate one for the dog. He origi- 

 nated the dual doctrine that dogs are prop- 

 erty in the civil court but not in the 

 criminal court. A vast change with respect 

 to dogs must be recognized by the courts 

 of our day. 



Blackstone's logic was inconsistent, for 

 the dog is as useful as he is a thing of 

 pleasure. 



Were the dog not a useful member of 

 society, he would not have attained his 

 present high estate. He aided the man of 

 the cave age in killing prey as food for 

 the family so that starvation would not 

 bring death. 



As the helper of the herdsman, one 

 dog did work which otherwise required the 

 services of a half dozen men — that of herd- 

 ing cattle and sheep, keeping them to- 

 gether and protecting them against wolves 

 and marauders. 



As sled dog in the far north, he trans- 

 ports mail, food for the hungry, medicines 

 for the sick over areas which railroads, 

 horses, autos and even planes cannot 

 traverse. 



As the staunch protector of the home, 

 the family and the children, he indeed is 

 a useful member of society. 



As guard, detector of concealed enemy, 

 carrier of messages, locator of wounded, 

 and transport for supplies, the war dog 

 has written a most creditable chapter in 

 World War II. 



F\irther, there is something in existence 

 now of which Blackstone never dreamed — 

 the breeding of purebred dogs. This activ- 

 ity has become almost an industry, in 

 which millions of dollars are invested not 

 only in the United States and other Eng- 

 lish speaking countries but in Germany, 

 France, and a half-dozen other countries. 

 Fifty million dollars are invested in 

 factories and plants designed for the pro- 

 duction of food, remedies and supplies for 

 man's best friend, the dog. 



It is high time that the Blackstonian 

 doctrine be disregarded for a more modern 

 and a truer view of the legal status of the 

 dog. 



The whole situation concerning the 

 Blackstonian doctrine, which is based 

 upon the common law, is set forth in the 

 State of Missouri v. Mease, 69 Missouri 

 App. 1, c. 582 (189€) : 



"It is unquestionably the law that dogs 

 are property in Missouri and that damages 

 may be recovered civilly for injuries to 

 them. It is also true that they are the 

 subject matter by special statutes of lar- 

 ceny. But it is not an offense at common 

 law to kill a dog, and in that respect the 

 common law is still in force in this state." 



The Supreme Court of the United States 

 has passed upon only two dog cases and 

 both of them followed the Blackstonian 

 doctrine. The first one in 1896 was Sen- 

 tell vs. New Orleans, 166 U.S. 698, in 

 which damages was claimed for a New- 

 foundland dog killed on a railroad track. 



The exact wording of •the decision is as 

 follows: "By the common law," Mr. Jus- 

 tice Brown said, "as well as by the law 

 of most, if not all the States, dogs are so 

 far recognized as property that an action 

 will lie for their conversion or injury. The 

 very fact that they are without the pro- 

 tection of the criminal laws shows that 

 property in dogs is of imperfect or quali- 

 fied nature, and they stand as it were, 

 being animals ferae naturae, in which 

 until killed or subdued, there is no prop- 

 erty, and domestic animals in which the 

 right of property is perfect and complete. 

 Laws for the protection of domestic ani- 

 mals are regarded as having but a limited 

 application to dogs." 



In the other case, a later case of 1920, 

 Nicchia vs. People of New York, 254 U.S. 

 228, the court quoted the Sentell case with 

 approval. 



In brief, one generally can consider the 

 dog personal property in every way, and 

 surely in a civil suit to recover damages. 

 6. Common Law as Source 



What is said here must be considered 

 particularly as applying in English-speak- 

 ing countries, where what is known as 

 the common law, is acknowledged, and 

 more particularly to dogs in the United 

 States, and to a great extent, in the 

 Dominion of Canada. 



The common or unwritten law has con- 

 fused many persons and perhaps, a better 

 name would be law as determined by court 

 decision. Points of law on which legisla- 

 tures or parliaments have not enacted any 



