528 CRUELTY AND MALICIOUS MISCHIEF. 



the statute; ^^ even where this enumerates a hst of quadrupeds 

 only and "other domestic animals." " But this latter de- 

 cision was dissented from in a Scotch case.^^ 



So, a fox is protected by the statute. "The word 'animal' 

 must be held to include wild and noxious animals, unless the 

 purpose of the statute or the context indicates a limited m'ean- 

 ing." 1® And the word includes a dog not listed for taxa- 

 tion." 



A rat is not a "domestic animal" within the meaning of the 

 English statute against cruelty. Under the English law "a 

 scientific man may be punished heavily for performing a pain- 

 ful experiment upon a living rat in the cause of science, but 

 a laborer may inflict just as severe pain upon the rat out of 

 mere wantonness with impunity." ^* 



The word "cattle" in statutes prohibiting cruelty and ma- 

 licious mischief has been held to designate all domestic quad- 

 rupeds collectively,^^ and to include horses, mares and 

 colts,^" geldings,^^ pigs,^^ asses,^^ and goats.^* But a buffalo, 

 though domesticated, has been held not to come within the 

 definition. ^^ 



"Peo. V. Klock, 48 Hun (N. Y.) 275; State v. Bruner, in Ind. 98; 

 Bates V. McCormick, 8 Ir. Jur., N. S., 239. 



" Budge V. Parsons, 3 B. & S. 382. 



"Johnstone v. Abercrorabie, 3 White Justic. Rep. (Sc.) 432. And see 

 94 L. T. 213. 



"° Com. V. Turner, 145 Mass. 296. 



" State V. Giles, 125 Ind. 124. And see Wilcox ■;■. State, loi Ga. 563. 



■■'42 Solic. Jour. 503 [quoted in 57 Alb. L. Jour, 374], citing and com- 

 menting on a magistrate's case. 



'" State V. Pruett, 61 Mo. App. 156. 



™Rex V. Paty, 2 Bl. 721; Rex v. Moyle, 2 East P. C. 1076; State v. 

 Hambleton, 22 Mo. 452. But see Brown v. Bailey, 4 Ala. 413. 



" Rex V. Mott, 2 East P. C, 1075, 



"Rex V. Chappie, R. & R. C. C. 77; State v. Pruett, supra. And see 

 Decatur Bank v. St. Louis Bank, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 294. 



'" Rex V. Whitney, i M. C. C. 3. And see Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Bru- 

 baker, 47 111. 462; Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Cole, 50 id. 184. 



'' State V. Groves, 119 N. C. 822. 



"' State V. Crenshaw, 22 Mo. 457. See, for the nomenclature of animals 

 in larceny statutes, §§ 55-57, supra. 



