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.t. 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.4 
1 Sentell v. New Orleans, etc. 3 McDerment v. Taft, 83 Vt. 
R. Co., 166 U. S. 698; Cranston 249, 75 Atl. 276. 
v. Mayor of Augusta, 61 Ga. 4Zanetta v. Bolles, 80 Vt. 
572. 345, 67 Atl. 818. 
2Campau v. Langley, 39 
Mich. 451; Blair v. Forehand, 
100 Mass. 136. 
