THE DOG AS THE SUBJECT OF LARCENY. 63 



tinlike the words 'goods and chattels,' have no settled and 

 well-defined meaning at the common law. We are left to 

 find their meaning, if there is any question, by the legitimate 

 aids in that behalf." The court accordingly held that a dog 

 was a "thing of value." ** 

 . And in Kansas a dog was held to be included in the term 

 "other personal property or valuable thing whatever" in a 

 larceny statute.** 



In England the larceny of a dog is now punishable under 

 Stat. 7 and 8 Geo. IV ch. 29 § 25, and 8 and 9 Vict. ch. 47. 



Where a registered dog is made by statute the subject of 

 larceny, one not registered is not the subject of larceny.^*" 



The dog as the subject of a prosecution for malicious mis- 

 chief will be discussed hereafter.^"^ 



Evidence that a trained bloodhound has tracked one ac- 

 cused of committing a crime is competent to go to the jury 

 as a circumstance tending to connect the defendant with the 

 crime.' "^ But the visits tracked must have some connection 

 with the ofifence charged and tend to show a system of 

 crime.*"^ In a Kentucky case it was held that evidence as 

 to trailing by a bloodhound is admissible where it is estab- 

 lished by the testimony of some one who has personal knowl- 

 edge of the fact that the particular dog has acuteness of scent 

 and power of discrimination, and has been trained or tested 

 in the tracking of human beings, and it appears that the dog, 

 so trained and tested, was laid on the trail, whether visible 

 or not, at a point where the circumstances tended clearly to 

 show that the guilty party had been, or upon a track which 

 such circumstances indicated to have been made by him.^"* 



" State V. Yates (O. Com. PI.), 10 Crim. L. Mag. 439. 



" Harrington v. Miles, 11 Kan. 480. 



"" State V. Butler (Del.), 43 Atl. Rep. 480. "" See § 126, infra. 



"= Hodge V. State, 98 Ala. 10; State v. Hall, 3 Ohio N. P. 125. 



'"" Spillman v. State (Tex. Cr.), 44 S. W. Rep. 150. 



"" Pedigo V. Com. (Ky.), 44 S. W. Rep. 143. Guffy, J., dissented, and 

 his opinion is favorably commented on in 57 Alb. L. Jour. 131 and 34 Can. 

 L. Jour. 286. 



