542 CRUELTY AND MALICIOUS MISCHIEF. 



an animal and cause it to be appraised and destroyed without 

 notice to the owner."* Where the officer may kill an animal 

 found abandoned if in the judgment of two reputable citizens 

 the animal is past recovery for any useful purpose, he is 

 liable for doing so unless he proves its condition, and 

 the judgment of the citizens without notice to the owner 

 is not conclusive."'"' And where the agent is authorized 

 to destroy any animal that is "injured, disabled, diseased past 

 recovery or unfit for any useful purpose," he may not take an 

 animal properly hitched on a street and kill it, however bad 

 its condition, where it is not abandoned or cruelly treated or 

 afflicted with a contagious disease.'"'' 



The opinion was expressed in an English case that the pre- 

 vention of cruelty to animals was a good charitable purpose, 

 though unaccompanied by any reference to the utility or im- 

 provement of man.*'^ And in Massachusetts the S. P. C. A. 

 has been held to be exempt from taxation as a charitable and 

 benevolent institution.^* In another English case it seemed 

 to be considered that the society for the protection of animals 

 liable to vivisection and the home for lost dogs were charities, 

 and perhaps also the society for the total suppression of vivi- 

 section;®^ and this last point was so decided in later cases.^"*' 

 A gift to a vegetarian society advocating the disuse of ani- 

 mal food on the ground that the slaughtering of living ani- 

 mals is inconsistent with their rights and needlessly cruel to 

 them, has also been held to be a charitable gift.^"^ 



" King V. Hayes, 80 Me. 206; Loesch v. Koehler, 144 Ind. 278, 



■■" Sahr V. Scholle, 89 Hnn (N. Y.) 42. 



'" Goodwin v. Toucy (Conn.), 41 Atl. Rep. 806. His remedy is un- 

 ■der those statutes requiring notice to be given to the owner: Ibid. 



°' j\]arsh ;■. Means, 3 Jur. N. S. 790. 



" Mass, S. P. C. A. V. Boston, 142 Mass. 24. ; 



'" Obert V. Barrow, 35 Ch. D. 472. 



""Armstrong v. Reeves, 25 L. R. Ir. 325; Cross v. London Anti- Vivi- 

 section Society, [1895] 2 Ch. 501. And see Purday v. Johnson, 60 L. T. 

 N. S. 17s. 



'"Webb V. Oldfield, [1898] i I. R. 431. See the dissenting opinion of 

 Hohiies, I-. J. 



