S14 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
The faults that the trainer should avoid in teaching re- 
trieving are too much eagerness to shoot the birds, thus 
neglecting the backing dog; too much hurry and im- 
patience; attempting to teach backing before the dog has 
had , proper opportunities to learn the significance of a 
point; Inattention to proper details or attending to them in 
a manner vphich results in slovenly performance, and trying 
to force an arbitrary method on all dogs alike. 
A Trespassing T>og Case. 
The Appellate Division of the Rhode Island Supreme 
Court gives the following opinion in the case of Wm. M. 
Harris Jr., vs. W. D. Eaton: 
May 5, 1897, Rogers, J. The plaintiff demurs to defend- 
ant's plea of justification in an action of trespass for killing 
the plaintiff's dog vrhile trespassing on the close of the 
defendant's master. 
The following are substantially the allegations set out 
with areat minuteness in the defendant's plea: For more 
than two years prior to the time of the killing the plaintiff's 
dog had been constantly and repeatedly in the habit of tres- 
passing on the close of one A. M, Eaton, and had there 
chased and killed certain fowls and animals, and had been 
driven off said close while killing said fowls, and at other 
titnes while trespassing on said close being fired at by said 
A, M. Eaton or by others his servants or agents; yet, never- 
theless, the said plaintiff, after having been so notified of the 
killing of said fowls and that his said dog had been fired at 
while so trespassing, and after having been requested and 
told by the said A. jVI. Eaton to keep his dog chained or shut 
up and off of the said close or he, the said dog, would be 
shot, refused and neglected so to do, but, on the contrary, 
continued and has continued down to the time when, etc , to 
allow his said dog to run at large and to trespass constantly 
on the close of the said A. M. Eaton. And when said dog 
was killed he was again trespassing upon the said close, with 
the Knowledge of the said plaintiff, at the time and soon 
after eight rabbits had been killed on the said close of said 
A. M. Eaton, by some dog or dogs or other animal or animals 
to the defendant unknown, and the defendant had reason to 
believe and did believe that said plaintiff's dog had taken 
part in killing said rabbits, whereupon he, acting as the agent 
of said A. M. Eaton, and with knowledge of the premises, 
and with knowledge thereof by the plaintiff, who nevertheless 
was then and there allowing his said dog to run at large and 
to continue to trespass upon said close, fired at said dogs and 
other dogs then and there trespassing on said close, with a 
gun loaded with gunpowder and bird shot, not for the pur- 
pose or with the intent of killing said dog, but to frighten 
him and drive him off of said close, and by chance the said 
dog was struck in some vital spot and died in consequence 
thereof. 
Analyzed and stripped of its verbiage, the plea resolves 
itself into this, that the plaintiff's dog was trespassing on the 
close of the defendant's master, under more or less aggravat- 
ing circumstances, and that the defendant, as agent for his 
master, fired a shotgun, not with the intent of killing said 
dog but to scare him and to drive him off of said close, and 
by chance the said dog was struck by said defendant's shot 
in some vital spot and died in consequence thereof. 
We fail to see how a voluntary act committed by the de- 
fendant, which he was under no obligation to do and which 
resulted in injury to the plaintiff, even if it produced effects 
not intended or foreseen, can justify such injury; though the 
lack of evil intent might mitigate the damages, if anytaing 
more than compensatory damages are claimed. Williams, 
C. J., in Yincent vs. ytinehour, 7 Yt, 62, 66, lays down 
the rule thus: "When a person is doing a voluntary act, 
which he is under no obligation to do, he is held answerable 
for any injury which may happen to another, either by care- 
lessness or accident." See also Wright vs. Clark, 50 Vt. 130, 
135; Underwood vs. Hewson, 1 Str. 596. 
Though the plea alleges the dog was shot merely by chance, 
the purpose and intent being to frighten him away and not 
to kill him, yet, whatever the intent, did any of the circum- 
stances set up in the plea, by way of inducement or other- 
wise, justify a killing? We thinJi not. Pub. Laws R, I., 
cap. Ill, define the legal status of a licensed dog. An un- 
licensed dog going at large has no apparent protection under 
the law, and any person may kill him. Sec. 13. So a licensed 
dog, not having on a collar with the owner's or keeper's 
name distinctly marked thereon, may be killed any where 
outside of his owner's, or keeper's enclosure. Sec. 4, and any 
person may kill any dog that may suddenly assault him, or 
any person of his family or in his company, while the 
person so assaulted is out of the enclosure of the owner or 
keeper of the dog. Sec. 6. Spaight vs. McGovern, 16 R. I. 
658. Any person likewise may kill any dog found out of 
the enclosure of its owner or keeper, worrymg wounding or 
killing any neat cattle, sheep, lamb, horse, hog or fowl, not 
the property of the owner, Sec. 6, and any oflicer charged 
with the service of an execution in a suit against the owner 
of a dog for a second recovery of damages committed by 
such dog, shall kill the offending dog as commanded in such 
execution. Sec. 3. In Sec. 7 of said cap. Ill is a provision for 
making complaint to a justice or clerk of a district court where- 
in, after certain proceediu/^s, authority may be obtained for 
killing objectionable dogs. Said cap. Ill makes a licensed dog 
property and the subject of larceny, and makes the owner 
of any dog liable for ihe damage he may do. Defendant's 
special plea nowhere brings the plaintiff's dog within the 
provisions of said cap. Ill authorizing any one other than 
h.s master to kill him. 
Neither the fact that the plaintiff's dog was a trespasser on 
A. M. Eaton's close, nor that he had previously committed 
depredations to property there, would afford justification for 
killing him, for Mr. Eaton could recover reparation for such 
injuries. In Brent vs. Kimball, 60, 111, 311, 313, the court 
says: "Appellee does not pretend, in his evidence, that the 
dog,' at the time of the killing, was doing any mischief to 
person or property, but claims, more, it seems, upon auspi- 
cioQ than K^nowledge, that the dog had previously destroyed 
his hens' nest or eggs. If the dog had a vicious habit, and 
appellant had previous notice of it, an action would lie 
against him for the damages done by his dog. But it does 
not follow that the party injured may justify the killing of 
the dog for that reason, any more than he could the killing 
of a breachy animal breaking into his corn." In this State 
no notice of the viciousness of his dog would have been 
necessary before bringing an action for damages done by the 
dog. Neither is it any justification that the plaintiff had 
been notified that his dog was in the habit of trespassing and 
had been shot at by Mr. Eaton or was going to be shot at by 
him if again found trespassing. Notice would be sufficient 
to justify under the statutes of some States, but not of this, 
for complaint to a justice or clerk of a district court should 
have been resorted to and the required proceedings had, to 
justify killing the dog. 
There are decisions in various States that one may defend 
and protect his property from dogs, and, when necessary for 
that purpose, to kill the dog. Anderson vs. Smith, 7 III. 
App. 354; Lipe vs. Blackwelder, 25 III. Aps. 119; Ten 
Hopen vs. Walker, 96 Mich. 236, and Livermore vs. 
Bachelder, 141 Mass. 179 In the latter case, which was 
tort for killing the plaintiff's dog, it appeared that said dog 
came upon the defendant's premises and there killed and 
maimed hens of the defendant, which were in his henhouse 
or shed. The dogs were driven away, and, in about fifteen 
minutes afterward, came again upon the defendant's premises, 
and were running toward the same shed and henhouse of 
the defendant, when the defendant, having reasonable cause 
to believe that the dogs were proceeding to maim and kill 
other of his hens in said shed and henhouse, shot and killed 
the plaintiff's dog. The court held that killing the dog was 
not in law justifiable, for to justify the killing, the defend- 
ant should have shown, not only that he had reasonable 
cause to believe that the dog was proceeding to maim and 
kill his hens, but also that he had reasonable cause to believe 
that it was necessary to kill the dog in order to prevent him 
from killing the hens. 
The plea nowhere shows that the plaintiff's dog when 
killed was worrying, wounding or killing any of the animals 
mentioned in said cap. III., Sec. 6, or that the defendant had 
reasonable cause to believe that it was necessary to kill the 
dog in order to protect his property other than the animals 
mentioned in said Sec. 6. 
In our opinion the defendant's special plea in bar sets up 
no sufficient cause in justification of killing the plaintiff's 
dog, and demurrer thereto is sustained and case remitted to 
the Common Pleas Division for further proceedings. 
MonoDgahela Valley Game and Fish Protective 
Association All-Age Entries. 
PiTTSBTiRG, Pa.— The entry list for the third annual All- 
Age Stake of the Monongahela Valley Game and Fish 
Protective Association closed with twenty-four nomina- 
tions, fifteen English setters and nine pointers, being an 
increase of five over last year. 
Full particulars containing directions for reaching the 
grounda will be forwarded for publication next week. 
ENGLISH SETTERS. 
Spot Cash— -H. K. Devereux's b., w. and t. dog (Van- 
guard — Georgia Belle), 
LoRETTA— H. K. Beattie's b., w. and t. bitch (Gladstone's 
Boy— Rill Ray). 
Rod's Pell— J. S. Robb, Jr.'s,b., w.and t. bitch (Rodfleld 
—Opal). 
Bird— R. S. D. Hartrick's b., w, and t. bitch (Gath's 
Mark— Ruby's Girl). ' 
Little Dorrit— Beazell & Gladden's \)., w. and t. bitch 
(Whyte B.— Dolly Varden). 
Winks— J. T. Crawford's b., w. and t. dog (Joe— Dot 
C). 
Klondyke— G. O. Smith's b., w. and t. dog (Gladstone's 
Boy— Speckle Gown). 
Tony's Ruby — Wm. Cummings's (agt.) o. and w. bitch 
(Antonio — Ruby's Girl). 
Caroline — ^Fox & Blythe Kennels' 1. and w. bitch 
(Couftt Gladstone IV. — Dan's Lady). 
FoRZANDo— Fox & Blythe Kennels' b., w. and t. dog 
(Gath's Mark— Countess Rush). 
^, Teddy M.— Albert Millaf's b., w. and t. dog (Gath's Mark 
— Countess Rush). 
Dauphin — Albert Millar's b., w. and t. dog (Gath's Mark 
— Countess Rush). 
Rod's Boy— King Graphic Kennels' b., w. and t. dog 
(Roderigo — Lany Gladstone). 
Baron Cincinnatos— T. J. McCoy's b., w. and t. dog 
(Dow R. — Nattinatis). 
POINTERS. 
Virginia— H. K. Devereux's 1, and w. bitch (Little 
Ned— Pearl's Dot). 
Jingo's Joy — Monongahela Kennels' 1. and w. bitch 
(Jingo — Pearl's Dot). 
Strictly Business— J. L. Craven's b. and w. bitch (Kent's 
Priam— Belle Fansher). 
Speckle Lad— H. L. Christy's b. and w. dog (Lad of 
Rush — Black Wonder's Pride). 
Nabob — Charlottesville F. T. Kennels' b. and w. dog 
(Rip Rap— Dolly D.). 
DpN — Thomas Harriott's lem. and w. dog (Doc — 
Rachel). 
Scott C. — G. A. Wilson's 1. and w. dog ( ). 
Pat J.— Ganter & McDonald's 1. and w. dog (Dash 
Ranger, Jr.— Patti M. II,). 
Rush — Frank Krase's 1. and w. dog (Rush of Lad — 
Spotty Ale). 
Albert's Shot — S. W. Carey, Jr.'s, b., w. and t. dog 
(Beau Brummel — Albert's Phoebe). 
S. E. CuMMiNGS, Sec'y. 
POINTS AND FLUSHES. 
Oatt. a. C. Waddell, Manager of the Del Monte Ken- 
nels, is making a stay of several weeks in the East. O wing to 
the quarantine regulations in Mississippi, his stay has been 
prolonged beyond his intention. He reports ill-luck in his 
kennel, a number of choice puppies dying and thereby reduc- 
ing needed materials for Derby and field use. However, 
the kennels seem to have a plucky determination to try again. 
Mr. H. B. Donovan, secretaly-treasurer, informs us that 
as the result of the Canadian Kennel Club's ballot, the fol- 
lowing list of officers has been elected: President, G. B. 
Sweetnam, Toronto; First Vice-President, R. McEwen, By- 
ron; Sec'y-Treasurer, H. B. Donovan, Toronto. Vice Presi- 
dents: Leslie Gault, Montreal; Fred T. Miller, Trenton, 
Oat. ; W. B. Wells, Chatham, Onl. ; G. B. Bruce, Calgary, 
N W. T. Executive Committee: 0. A. Stone, Dr. A. F. 
Webster, A. Boultbee and J. G. Kent, Toronto ; A F. Gault 
and .L A, Pitt, Moutreal; Rev. Thos. Geoghegan, Hamilton; 
T. A. Carson, Kingston; F. M. Gowans, Cobourg; Dr. J. S, 
Niven, London; R, G, Steacy, Brockville; H. P. Thomas, 
Belleville. 
At a meeting of the New Engand Kennel Club held at the 
club house at Braintree Oct. 7, the following ofiicers were 
elected: President, Samuel Hammond; Vice President, 
Oliver Ames; Secretary, James L. Little (re-elected); Treas- 
urer, Andrew B. Cobb (re-elected). 
The Metropolitan Kennel Club's second annual dog show 
will be held in the old 13th Regiment Armdry, Brooklyn, 
Nov. 24 to 37 Thanksgiving Day week. 
Premium lists are now in the printer's hands and will be 
ready for distribution in a few days. 
An office will be secured in Brooklyn and announced as 
early as possible. For the present, applications for premium 
lists and other communications can be addressed to James 
Mortimer, Superintendent, Hempstead, L. I. 
The following, printed in the New York dailies of Oct. 13, 
marks the formal opening of the silly season in yachting. 
There is no "President of the Defender Syndicate" and no 
"French Yacht Club," and even if it were proposed to race 
Defender abroad next season it is extremely unlikely that 
official notice would be given long in advance: 
Cannes, Monday.— It is announced here that the president 
of the Defender syndicate has notified the French Yacht 
Club that the American yacht Defender, which defeated 
Lord Dunraven's Valkyrie HI. in the last series of races for' 
the America's cup, will take part in the next Cannes regatta 
—that of the early part of 1898. 
Thebe is something decidedly un American in the idea of 
any wholesome restrictions in yachting. The prevailing sen- 
timent from the earliest days of the sport has been in favor 
of "plain and simple rules," such as would encourage the 
production of racing machines with immense sail plans, 
manned by unlimited creiws, and held up by shifting ballast. 
Every movement for salutary limitations to sail area, crews 
or ballast has been opposed by the great body of American 
yachtsmen, and its supporters have been derided as cranks, 
Anglomaniacs, rocking-chair sailors and mischievous char- 
acters in general. No matter what intrinsic merit it might 
have, a proposal for the restriction of extreme features haa 
always been met with a storm of patriotie objections and 
abuse of its advocates. The Seawanhaka rule, of length and, 
sail area, is a notable instance; but others are fdund long 
before the Seawanhaka 0. Y. C. was in existence, and the 
same spirit is alive to-day, though fortunately it h'als lost 
much of its old-tirbe strength. 
The result of this national policy of letting everything go, 
with no attempt at judicious and timely legislation to meet 
developments in design and construction, and alterations in 
the conditions of yachting, are only too plainly visibleto^day 
in the total extinction of the racing yacht, as seen in the90rt, 
schooner class, with Colonia sailing alone; in the 90ft. cutter 
class, with Defender rusting at her moorings and Vigilant 
and Navahoe under cruising rigs, and in the smaller cutter 
classes, in which Queen Mab, Wasp and Syce have no com- 
petitors. . . 
The necessity for timely restrictions on extreme draft, on 
light and costly construction, and on the cutting down of 
displacement have been plainly pointed out year by year, 
and many proposals have been made for remedying existing 
and growing evils, but all without avail up to the present 
time. 
It is evident, however, that public opinion in yachting is 
now swinging to the other extreme, and that restricted 
classes will be the order of the day for some time at least. 
The 30ft. restricted class having proved successful, and the 
51ft. unlimited class the reverse, a new 51ft. restricted class 
is now under way for next season, under limitations which 
promise to give what yachtsmen have long professed to want, 
but which they have taken no action whatever to obtain by 
the judicious amendment of the regular measurement rules. 
Now the work is to be done bjr means of special legislation. 
The 21ft. knockabout class in Boston having proved suc- 
cessful alongside of other unlimited classes, a 25ft. class 
under similar restrictions is promised for next season. The 
new Seawanhaka restricted class, of Sift. l.\v.l., has already 
taken definite shape, with twenty-five yachts ordered and 
applications for ten more refused; and now some neighbor- 
ing clubs are working on a similar idea.; 
The American Y. C, of Milton Point, has invited designs 
for a yacht of moderate proportions, of about 25ft, l.w.l., 
S8ft. over all, 8 to 9ft. beam, 5ft. or so of draft, and SOOsq. ft. 
of sail in mainsail and jib. A head room of 6ft. is insisted 
on, with a fairly large cabin and a cockpit about 7ft. long. 
While the class may not be restricted to a single design, it is 
probable that one design will be selected and a number of 
yachts built from it at once, such restrictions being adopted 
as will prevent the outbuilding of this standard design by 
later designers. The class will give a larger yacht than the 
Seawanhaka, but at nearly double the cost. 
The one-design idea is finding equal favor in other parts of 
the country, in all sizes from 15ft upward, and it is probable 
that classes of this kind, under some stringehf restrictions 
even if not limited to a standard design, will be plentiful 
next year, with material benefit to yacht racing and yacht- 
ing in general. 
There is much to be thankful for in this new turn of affairs; 
in the first place, it offers to men of moderate means, and 
even to those who can afford to spend liberally in first cost, 
but cannot build a Syce or a Wasp every year, a chance to 
race at a comparatively moderate expense, and in yachts that 
are useful for other purposes than racing and salable at a 
fair price after their first season. In this way it is likely to 
work to the immediate benefit of yachting: in providing 
good sport throughout the whole of 1898 and for several suc- 
cessive seasons at least. 
What is of even more importance, however, is the value of 
the experiment as a much-needed demonstration of the abso- 
lute necessity for thorough restrictive legislation to govern 
all the regular classes. It is greatly to be regretted that the 
new restricted classes have no relation to each other or to 
existing classes, and only tend to increase the customary 
chaos of yachting. The 51ft. class will probably fall in with 
established limits, but the 30ft. class conflicts with two reg- 
ular classes and the new Seawanhaka and American classes 
will do the same. As the regular classes now stand, it is im- 
possible to adapt restricted classes to their limits, and for a 
time at least there must be more or less confusion and 
clashing. 
Had the clubs and yachtsmen at large been awake in time 
to the necessity of restrictions on design and construction in 
the regular class rules, it would have been possible long be- 
fore this to have adopted a new" formula and some supple- 
mentary restrictions to which the new restricted classes 
might comply; or which would even have made the creation 
of restricted special classes Unnecessary. 
The best that can be hoped now is that the lesson may not 
be lost, and that in the near future a radically new rule may 
be adopted, one designed to produce not merely the fastest 
possible yacht, but a fast yacht of general good qualities in 
place of the present racing machine. 
The Yachtsman has made a very liberal and sportsman- 
like offer of prizes for trial races ana also for subsequent 
races of the class if Mr. Brand's challenge should be endorsed 
by his club and accepted by the Canadians. It is only by the 
construction and thorough trial of a fleet that one yacht 
good enough for international racing can be produced. 
The Seawanhaka C. Y. C. has met with extraordinary sue- 
