62 DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 



in their most extensive signification, but according to their 

 usual import in the criminal law." ^^ 



And in Alabama it has been held that a dog does not come 

 within the words "personal property," as there is no statute 

 changing the common law.®* And in a later case it was held 

 that a statute making it larceny to steal a registered dog for a 

 reward, without a provision making dogs property or giving 

 them some value or stating whether the punishment of grand 

 or petit larceny should be imposed, was void for uncertainty. 

 "Dogs are not property. There is no presumption that any 

 dog is valuable. Not being property, the prima facie pre- 

 sumption in any case is that the animal has no value. It is, 

 of course, competent for the legislature to make dogs prop- 

 erty, and a status thus given them would, we may concede, 

 without deciding, carry with it a presumption of value." ®' 

 And it was held that the mere fact of registry did not imply 

 either the attributes of property or the incident of value. 



In a Tennessee case holding, like Peo. v. Maloney, supra, 

 that, where a statute defined "personal property" as "goods 

 and chattels," a dog was included, the court said, referring to 

 Ward V. State, supra : "That court we suppose had no statu- 

 tory definition of 'personal goods' or 'personal property,' and 

 referred to the common law definition." ®« 



In Indiana dogs have been held not to be subjects of lar- 

 ceny as "personal goods." *^ 



In an Ohio case, referring to State v. Lymus, supra, it is 

 said: "Since that decision our larceny act has been revised 

 and re-enacted and the words now used to describe property 

 that may be stolen are 'any thing of value.' These words, 



" Tilghman, C. J., in Findlay v. Bear, 8 S. & R. (Pa.) 571. And see 

 to the same effect State v. Lymus, 26 O. St. 400. See, also, State v. Yates, 

 infra. 



But now, in Pennsylvania, dogs have been declared to be personal prop- 

 erty and the subject of larceny: Com. v. Depuy, 148 Pa. St. 201. 



" Ward V. State, 48 Ala. 161. And see State v. Holder, 81 N. C. 527. 



°° Johnston v. State, 100 Ala. 32. 



'= State V. Brown, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 53. " State v. Doe, 79 Ind. 9. 



