300 ANIMALS TRESPASSING AND RUNNING AT LARGE. 



the allowing of "stallions" to run at large does not apply to 

 colts until they are of such an age as to be troublesome to 

 mares or dangerous to be at large.^^^ 



The provision of a code authorizing the restraining of sheep 

 and swine from running at large by a majority vote of the 

 people of the several counties, is not unconstitutional on the 

 ground that "all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform 

 operation," nor for the reason that it depends for validity 

 upon the vote of the people, not on the expressed will of the 

 legislature.^^* And the herd law restraining live stock from 

 running at large but allowing the electors in a district to per- 

 mit this, was held to be not within the prohibition of the 

 United States Statutes at Large against Territorial legisla- 

 tures passing local or special laws regulating township and 

 county affairs, as the herd law merely permitted districts to 

 regulate their own affairs.^^* But an act making it a misde- 

 meanor wilfully to permit stock to run at large in local option 

 territory was held invalid as applied to counties which had 

 previously adopted the local option stock law — it providing 

 only a civil remedy for its violation.^^^ 



Voting upon permitting animals to run at large in a county 

 is voting upon a public measure within the meaning of an 

 election law prescribing the form of ballot.^^" Mere irregu- 

 larities in conducting such an election will not render it in- 

 valid.22^ 



Although a city by its charter has power to restrain animals 

 from running at large, a complainant alleging special 

 damage by reason of council's neglect to pass any ordinance 

 on the subject, does not show a cause of action.^^^ Nor 



""' Aylesworth v. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 30 la. 459. 



''" Dalby v. Wolf, 14 la. 228. ""Johnson v. Mocabee, i Okla. 204.- 



''' McElroy v. State (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. Rep. 359. 



'^' Union Co. v. Ussery, 147 111. 204. 



'" Hannah v. Shepherd (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. Rep. 137. 



'''Kelley v. Milwaukee, 18 Wis. 86. And this holds where such an 

 ordinance was passed, but afterwards repealed or suspended: Rivers v. 

 Augusta, 6s Ga. 376. 



