64 DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 



Evidence that bloodhounds of the same breed, trained by the 

 same man, as those used to track the defendant, at one time, 

 after having been put upon the track of a human being, left 

 the trail to trail a sheep, is inadmissible.^"^ 



The efifect of taxation in determining the status of a dog 

 at law is considered in the next section. 



22. Taxation and License — The common law doctrine that 

 dogs are not the subjects of larceny has been held to be abro- 

 gated by a statute imposing a tax, that being a recognition of 

 property in them, the tax in this case being for the common 

 school fund and not to be expended in payment for sheep 

 killed by the dogs.^"^ And where dogs were held not to be 

 the subjects of statutory larceny, the court said : "If dogs 

 were taxed in Indiana as other property for revenue purposes, 

 it would be a strong circumstance to show an intent on the 

 part of the legislature to abrogate the common law rule and 

 make them the subjects of larceny like any other personal 

 property. But, so far as we are advised, dogs have never 

 been thus taxed. A specific tax has been, from time to time, 

 levied upon dogs, and, when collected, appHed generally, if 

 not always, to payment for sheep killed by them. . . . These 

 specific taxes upon dogs can be upheld only on the ground 

 that they are not revenue measures, but police regula- 

 tions." i«^ 



License taxes on dogs to be paid over to a fund to com- 

 pensate sheep owners for their losses caused by the dogs, are 

 not unconstitutional as creating a fund to the advantage of 



""' Simpson v. State, iii Ala. 6,— the court saying: "The test by compar- 

 ison was not sufficiently certain to determine the reliability of the dogs 

 employed here by reference to the qualities of other dogs." 



"" Com. V. Hazelwood, 84 Ky. 681. 



See, in general, as to license and tax laws, 40 L. R. A. 520 n. 



"' State V. Doe, 79 Ind. 9. To the same efifect see Van Horn v. Peo., 

 46 Mich. 183, and the cases cited in n. 114 infra. And as to the Indiana 

 statute, see Shelby v. Randies, 57 Ind. 390. 



