554 
CHAPTER LXIV. 
THE DOG AND THE LAW. 
BY WALTER S. GLYNN. 
“Ts there not something in the pleading eye 
Of the poor brute that suffers, which arraigns 
The law that bids it suffer? Has tt not 
A claim for some remembrance in the book 
That fills its pages with the idle words. 
Spoken of man?” 
as an animal, a piece of goods, 
a commercial commodity, has in- 
creased very considerably in value. 
Some few years back such a thing as a 
show for dogs was unheard of, and the 
several breeds were not rigidly distinguished ; 
but now the Kennel Club recognises some 
eighty different breeds and varieties, and 
there are now many more shows for 
dogs in the United Kingdom in one year 
than there are days of the year. A great 
business is done in all sorts of ways in 
connection with them ; 
thousands of pounds change hands over 
them, and a vast amount of employment 
is directly or indirectly derived from them. 
The affairs, the circumstances, of the dog 
are now very different indeed from what 
they were a short time back; he is now 
a valuable, much-prized animal. In pro- 
portion to his size, it is probable that he 
fetches more money than any animal in 
the world. He has thousands of owners 
to-day, where a few years ago he had few, 
and although it is true that he has been 
much beloved by mankind, has had much 
care and attention bestowed on him, and 
has had applied to him for a very long 
time the somewhat high-sounding title of 
‘‘man’s best friend,” yet it is only of late 
years that he has sprung into great promi- 
nence, and become the thing of commercial 
value that he now undoubtedly is. 
If any proof were needed of this enormous 
\ \ TITHIN the last few years the dog 
thousands and- 
—O. W. HoLMEs. 
change that has taken place in the status 
of the dog, one cannot do better than 
examine into the condition of the law 
affecting him in ancient times, and con- 
sider it in comparison with that prevailing 
at the present day. 
It may, for example, be interesting to 
remember that at common law dogs were 
regarded as of a base nature, and not 
sufficiently subjects of private ownership 
to be the objects of larceny; for which 
result the reason was said to be “that 
however they are valued by the owner, 
yet they shall never be so highly regarded 
by the law that for the sake of them a 
man shall die.’”’ It seems, however, some- 
what extraordinary that though it was not 
larceny to steal the live article, yet if a 
person stole the skin of a dead dog he could 
be found guilty of larceny and sentenced 
to be hanged. In the year 1770, however, 
dog stealing was made an offence punish- 
able summarily, and stealing a dog or 
unlawfully having in possession or on the 
defendant’s premises a stolen dog, or the 
skin of a stolen dog, was punishable by 
a court of summary jurisdiction either by 
imprisonment, with or without hard labour, 
for not more than six months, or by an 
order to forfeit and pay the value of the dog, 
and also a sum not exceeding £20. Stealing 
a dog, or unlawfully having one in posses- 
sion, etc., after a previous conviction of dog 
stealing, either before or since the year 
1861, is a misdemeanour triable at quarter 
