298 ANIMALS TRESPASSING AND RUNNING AT LARGE. 



not necessary to show design or intention; permission is 

 enough." ^oe 



78. Statutes and Ordinances Regulating Running at Large 



An act or ordinance prohibiting the running at large of ani- 

 mals within certain districts is not unconstitutional.^"^ A 

 city may by virtue of its police power impose a fine on the 

 owners of animals found astray,^"® direct the seizure of such 

 animals,^"^ prohibit the going of animals on the sidewalk,^" 

 require that dogs be registered and collared to prevent their 

 running at large,^" etc. Regulations with regard to im- 

 pounding will be treated of hereafter.^^^ 



A charter authorizing a city council tO' restrain animals 

 from running at large was held not to authorize an ordinance 

 providing a penalty for trespasses committed by herdsmen in 

 herding cattle on private lands.^^^ 



Where power was granted to enact by-laws and ordinances 

 necessary for the well-regulation, interest, health, etc., of the 

 town, not inconsistent with the laws of the State, and to abate 

 nuisances, this was held not to authorize the enactment of a 

 by-law restraining animals from running at large where that 

 was in contravention of the State laws.''^* But where the 

 legislature confers on the town the power to declare what 



™ Petersburg v. Whitnack, 48 111. App. 663. 



"' Spigener v. Rives, 104 Ala. 437; Chattanooga v. Norman, 92 Tenn. 

 73; Haigh V. Bell, 41 W. Va. 19; Chamberlain v. Litchfield, 56 111. App. 

 652. 



A plea that the ordinance was not being enforced at the time of the 

 alleged violation, was held bad in Kitchens v. Elliott, 114 Ala. 290. 



"" Third Munic. of N. O. v. Blance, i La. Ann. 385. 



'°° Wilson V. Beyers, s Wash. 303. 



™ Com. V. Curtis, 9 Allen (Mass.) 266. 



"" State V. Topeka, 36 Kan. 76; Independence v. Trouvalle, 15 id. 70. 



"= See Title IV, Ch. II, infra. 



''^' State V. Johnson, 41 Minn. in. 



A statute providing for the restraint of animals running at large was 

 held not to give an exclusive remedy in Bowles v. Abrahams, 65 Mo. 

 App. 10. 



'" Collins V. Hatch, 18 O. 523. 



