60 DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 



and they are largely the subjects of trade and traffic. In 

 many ways they are put to useful service and, so far as per- 

 tains to their ownership as personal property, they possess 

 all the attributes of other personal property." *** 



So in another New York case it is said : "In the year 1857 

 a law was passed in this State providing for the 'incorporation 

 of associations for improving the breed of domestic animals.' 

 It declares that any corporation formed under it shall have 

 power to raise, import, purchase, keep, breed and sell all kinds 

 of domestic animals. Why are not dogs within the purview 

 of this statute? Although not ranked among domestic ani- 

 mals in the time of or by Lord Hale, yet the estimation in 

 which they have been since held by society shows that they 

 are no longer considered to be so base as not, on that account, 

 at least, to be the subject of larceny. If by 'domestic' is 

 meant 'belonging to the house,' who can deny this attribute 

 to the dog? What animal more domestic? What one ap- 

 preciates a home more, shows stronger attachments to it, or, 

 if it strays from it, is more certain to return to it? In some of 

 its species it serves as a pet or a companion. In others, it 

 assists and takes part in manly sports and recreations. In 

 others again, it is the faithful custodian and guardian of prop- 

 erty. In none, it may be said, is it entirely divested of use- 

 fulness. When the benefits it confers are reflected upon, why 

 is there not a perfect propriety in improving the breed of such 

 an animal? If it comes within the description of domestic 

 animals under this act of 1857, it is certainly property, the sub- 

 ject of larceny." ** 



But in Maine under a statute making it an offense to kill 

 or wound a domestic animal, it was held that a dog was not 



" MuUaly v. Peo., 86 N. Y. 365. 



In Mississippi a dog is "property:" Jones v. 111. Cent. R. Co. (Miss.), 

 23 South. Rep. 358. 



"• Peo. V. Campbell, 4 Park Cr. (N. Y.) 386, 394. And in Peo. v. Tighe, 

 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 607, after stating the common law doctrine as to property 

 in dogs, the court says; "But the world moves and these conditions no 

 longer exist, and in this State a dog is property." 



