553 



CHAPTER LXIV. 

 THE DOG AND THE LAW. 



BY WALTER S. GLYNN. 



" Is there not something in the pleading eye 

 Of the poor brute that suffers, which arraigns 

 The law that bids it suffer ? Has it not 

 A claim for some remembrance in the book 

 That fills its pages with the idle words. 

 Spoken of man ? " — O. W. Holmes. 



\\ 7'ITHIN the last few years the dog 

 'Y' as an animal, a piece of goods, 

 a commercial commodity, has in- 

 creas2d very considerably in value. 



SomL' few years back such a thing as a 

 show for dogs was unheard of, and the 

 several breeds were not rigidly distinguished ; 

 but now the Kennel Club recognises some 

 eighty different breads and varieties, and 

 there are now many more shows for 

 dogs in the United Kingdom in one year 

 than there are days of the year. A great 

 business is done in all sorts of ways in 

 connection with them ; thousands and 

 thousands of pounds change hands over 

 them, and a vast amount of employment 

 is directly or indirectly derived from them. 



The affairs, the circumstances, of the dog 

 are now very different indeed from what 

 they were a short time back ; he is now 

 a valuable, much-prized animal. In pro- 

 portion to his size, it is probable that he 

 fetches more money than any animal in 

 the world. He has thousands of owners 

 to-day, where a few years ago he had few, 

 and although it is true that he has been 

 much beloved by mankind, has had much 

 care and attention bestowed on him, and 

 has had applied to him for a very long 

 time the somewhat high-sounding title of 

 " man's best friend," yet it is only of late 

 years that he has sprung into great promi- 

 nence, and become the thing of commercial 

 value that he now undoubtedly is. 



If an}- proof were needed of this enormous 



change that has taken place in the status 

 of the dog, one cannot do better than 

 examine into the condition of the law 

 affecting him in ancient times, and con- 

 sider it in comparison with that prevailing 

 at the present day. 



It may, for example, be interesting to 

 remember that at common law dogs were 

 regarded as of a base nature, and not 

 sufticiently subjects of private ownership 

 to be the objects of larceny ; for which 

 result the reason was said to be " that 

 however they are valued by the owner, 

 yet they shall never be so highly regardsd 

 by the law that for the sake of them a 

 man shall die." It seems, however, some- 

 what e.xtraordinary that though it was not 

 larceny to steal the live article, yet if a 

 person stole the skin of a dead dog he could 

 be found guilty of larceny and sentenced 

 to be hanged. In the year 1770, however, 

 dog stealing was made an offence punish- 

 able summarily, and stealing a dog or 

 unlawfully having in possession or on the 

 defendant's premises a stolen dog, or the 

 skin of a stolen dog, was punishable by 

 a court of summary jurisdiction either by 

 imprisonment, with or without hard labour, 

 for not more than si.x months, or by an 

 order to forfeit and pay the value of the dog, 

 and also a sum not exceeding £20. Stealing 

 a dog, or unlawfully having one in posses- 

 sion, etc., after a previous conviction of dog 

 stealing, either before or since the year 

 1861, is a misdemeanour triable at quarter 



