WHAT ACTS ARE PROHIBITED. 537 



it was held that the defendant could not be convicted 

 of "cruelly beating or needlessly mutilating or killing" an ani- 

 mal. "If one destroys the life of an animal for the honest 

 purpose of protecting his person or property and the circum- 

 stances are of such a character as to readily justify the belief 

 that the measure is necessary to that end, the act would not 

 be in violation of the statute under consideration, though it 

 turned out that the apprehensions were in fact groundless 

 and the destruction of life not necessary." ®^ One charged 

 with injuring animals running at large cannot set up as a de- 

 fence a law making it unlawful for them to run at large.®* 



123. Injuring for Sport; Dishorning and Spaying With re- 

 gard to the taking of life for sport, it was said in a Missouri 

 case: "The universal love of so-called 'sports' which involve 

 the destruction of animal life cannot now be ignored in a 

 search after the legislative meaning in the act before us. Such 

 diversions are not always resorted to for the means of human 

 sustenance. Yet they are not considered 'needless' for man's 

 enjoyment of his legitimate dominion over the brute creation. 

 The individual who finds a healthful recreation in gunning or 

 fishing can hardly be told that this must not be gained at the 

 -expense of his dumb subjects. The plea for life which he 

 might hear, if the gift of speech were not denied, would have 

 httle weight against even the momentary triumphs of the 

 marksman who brings down his game. It may be that the 

 day will come when sentiments of mercy and humanity shall 

 have so far advanced, with the progress of refining thought, 

 that the man who can so estimate a fleeting satisfaction above 

 a life, however lowly, which only omnipotence can bestow, 

 will be regarded as exceptionally selfish and cruel. But no 

 such feeling prevails as a basis for the interpretation of a legis- 

 lative enactment." '^'' 



It was there held that pigeon-shooting was not an offense 



" Hunt z\ State, 3 Ind. App. 383- °° State v. Rivers, 90 N. C. 738. 

 '" State V. Bogardus, 4 Mo. App. 215, 219, per Lewis, P. J. 



