650 CRUELTY AND MALICIOUS MISCHIEF. 



tioned. They are not regarded by law as being of the same 

 intrinsic value as property, as the animals enumerated in the 

 statute; and cannot, we think, be brought within the pro- 

 hibition under the general expression 'any other property' 

 by intendment. Nor, in point of fact, do we suppose it was 

 intended by the law-makers to include them. Had it been, 

 they would doubtless have been included among the ani- 

 mals expressly enumerated." ^*^ 



In Virginia under a statute making it indictable to destroy 

 wilfully any tree or other timber, or property, real or per- 

 sonal, belonging to another, it was held that no criminal 

 prosecution lay for killing a dog. "In a penal act the 



word 'property' standing alone ought to be considered to 

 mean full and complete property, such as by the common 

 law may be protected by a public prosecution for the lar- 

 ceny thereof." '** And in Minnesota the malicious killing 

 of a dog was held not to be indictable under the words 

 "horse, cattle, or other beasts." "All such as have in law no 

 value were not intended to be included in that general 

 term."i« 



The status of the dog as the subject of property has been 

 already discussed in this work.^*" The decisions based on the 

 theory that he is either not "property," or property possessing 

 no intrinsic value, though of historical interest, are of slight 

 authority now. The civil and criminal liabilities for injuries 

 to the property of others ought to be, and generally are, at- 

 tached to those inflicted on dogs, as well as on other domestic 

 animals. 



The maiming, wounding, disfiguring, etc., of animals are 

 forbidden in the statutes against malicious mischief. The 

 word "maim" implies a permanent injury;"^ and where a 



'" State V. Marshall, 13 Tex. 55. 



'"Com. V. Maclin, 3 Leigh (Va.) 809. And see Davis v. Com., 17 

 Gratt. (Va.) 617. 

 "" U. S. V. Gideon, i Minn. 292. "= See §§ 20-22. supra. 

 "' State V. Harris, 11 la, 414; Reg. v. Jeans, i C, & K. 539. 



