MALICIOUS MISCHIEF TO ANIMALS. 549 



liable, his carelessness supplying the criminal motive.^^' 

 So, one is liable who causes the death of an animal by grati- 

 fying his own depraved tastes, and not caring whether it is 

 injured or not, though bearing no ill-will either to the owner 

 or to the animal itself.^*" 



A dog has been held to be such "property" as to come 

 within the statutory provisions against malicious mischief.^*^ 

 But where a statute prohibited the injuring or destroying 

 of "public or private property," this was held not to include 

 dogs but to refer only to inanimate property, and the court 

 said : "We do not think it probable that the legislature of 

 this State ever regarded the dog as being, in a general sense, 

 property concerning which a criminal offense could be com- 

 mitted. . We find nothing in our criminal statutes sug- 

 gesting any reasDn why this animal shotild be regarded as 

 a subject-matter :f crime in any instance where it is not ex- 

 pressly so declared." ^*^ And in a Texas case it is said: "It 

 seems probable from the use of the words 'injure or destroy' 

 in reference to the property designated by the phrase 'any 

 other property' that this latter expression was intended . . . 

 to include only inanimate property to the injury or destruc- 

 tion of which the terms 'kill,' 'maim,' 'wound,' etc., . . . 

 could not properly be applied. However this may be, dogs 

 are not mentioned in the statute; nor do they come within 

 either class or description of the animals which are men- 



'" State V. Barnard. 88 N. C. 66i. 



As to the offense of killing or injuring attacking or trespassing ani- 

 mals, see § 122, supra. 



'*" Reg. V. Welch, i Q. B. D. 23, where the defendant inserted the 

 handle of a stable fork in the vagina of a mare and pushed it. 



"" Kinsman v. State, 77 Ind. 132; State v. Sumner, 2 id. 377; State v. 

 McDuffie, 34 N. H. 523. And see State v. Latham, 13 Ired. L. (N. C.) 

 33 and the cases cited in 40 L. R. A. 511 n. 



So, a dog is a "dumb anWial" within the meaning of a statute against 

 wanton killing: McDaniel v. State, S Tex. App. 475- 



That it is not error to refuse to admit evidence of the value of a dog 

 on the part of the defendant, see Dinwiddie v. State, 103 Ind. loi. 



"' Patton V. State, 93 Ga. in. 



