326 
AMEEICATs^ A.QEIOIJLTUEIST. 
[August, 
A Bored-Well Bucket. 
On the Western dry plains, where water can be 
reached only at the depth of from seventy to one 
hundred and twenty feet, the sinking of a well is 
no small matter. The well is usually bored, and 
a six or eight-inch zinc pipe inserted. No or¬ 
dinary pump can-be used, but w’ater may be drawn 
by means of a “ bucket,” as shown in the engrav¬ 
ing. The bucket, which is only very little less 
in diameter than the 
well-pipe, consists of 
joints of zinc-pipe sol¬ 
dered together, with a 
stiff bail at the top, and 
a valve at the bottom. 
The bottom itself is a 
circular piece of soft 
wood, usually pine, 
with a hole in the centre 
nearly two inches in 
diameter. On the up¬ 
per side is a piece of 
stiff leather for a valve. 
h represents the bot¬ 
tom, on a larger scale 
than the bucket, and a, 
the leather valve. To 
stiffen the leather, fas¬ 
ten a convex block of 
wood on the upper 
side by means of a tack 
from beneath, and 
screw the whole by the 
shank to the bottom piece. The valve is so simple in 
construction that any repair is easy. In use, a wind¬ 
lass is employed. As the bucket reaches the top, 
it is pulled to one side and set vertically in a trough. 
A peg two or three inches high rises from the bot¬ 
tom of the trough which lifts the valve and allows 
the water to escape. This apparatus is economical 
and has proved very satisfactory in daily use. 
BUCKET FOR A BORED 
WELL. 
Dog Law. 
A valuable shepherd dog belonging to a farmer in 
Northern New York, while crossing over a neigh¬ 
boring farm, got into an altercation with the neigh¬ 
bor’s bull dog, and was so roughly handled in the 
fight which ensued, that he died in consequence. 
The owner of the shepherd dog wishes to know 
whether he can recover its value from the owner of 
the bull dog. He says that his dog had a gentle 
■disposition, and was not given to fighting. 
It is very doubtful whether, under the circum¬ 
stances, the value of the dog could be recovered. 
At the English common law, dogs were not re¬ 
garded as having intrinsic value, and they could 
‘not be the subject of larceny (4' Blackstone, 236). 
But this is not the present American doctrine, for 
there are now many eases in which damages have 
been awarded for the unlawful lulling of valuable 
dogs (109 Mass., 273; 60 Ill., 211). In these eases, how¬ 
ever, man has generally had a hand. The reported 
decisions involving the law of dog fights pure and 
simple, in which man has not been present as a 
modifying influence, are not numerous. There is 
fortunately one, a New York case, in which the 
facts were nearly identical with those above stated, 
and in that the iearned judge discourses as follows : 
‘'**The branch of law applicable to direct conflicts 
and collisions between dog and dog, is entirely new to 
me, and this case opens up an entirely new field of in¬ 
vestigation. I am constrained to admit total ignorance 
of tbe code duello among dogs, or what constitutes a 
just cause of offense, and justifles a resort to arms, or 
rather to teeth for redress; whether jealousy is a just 
cause of war, or what difivrent degrees and kinds of in¬ 
sult or slight, or what violation of the rules of etiquette 
entitle the injured or oft’ended beast to insist upon prompt 
and appropriate satisfaction, I know not, and I am glad 
to know that no nice question upon the conduct of the 
conflict on the part of tlie principal actors, arises in this 
case. It is not claimed upon either side, tiiat tiie struggie 
was not in all respects dog-like .and fair. Indeed, I was 
not before aware that it was claimed that any law, hu¬ 
man or divine, moral or ceremonial, common or statute, 
undertook to regulate or control tliesc matters, but sup- 
,-posed that this was one of tlie few privileges which this 
class of animals still retained in the domesticated state ; 
that it was one of tlieir reserved rights, not surrendered 
wlien they entered into and became a part of the domes¬ 
tic institution, to settle and avenge in their own way, all 
individual wrongs and insults, witliout regard to wliat 
Blackstone or any other jurist might write, speak, or 
think, of tile ‘rights of persons ’ or the ‘ rights of tilings,’ 
I have been a firm believer with the poet in the divine 
right of dogs to fight, and witli liim would say: 
Let dogs delight to liark and bite. 
For God hath made tliem so; 
Let hears and lions growl and fight. 
For ’tis their nature to. 
***Whatcver may have been tlie character and habits of 
the victorious dog, there is no evidence tliat he was the 
aggressor, or in the wrong, in tliis particular flglit. The 
plaintiff's dog may have provoked the quarrel, and have 
caused the fight; and if so, tlie owner of tlie victor dog 
c.aiinot be made responsible for the consequences. 
. There is no evidence that the defendant’s dog was a dan¬ 
gerous animal, or one unfit to be kept. The cases cited, 
in which dogs have attacked human beings, altliougli 
trespassers, and the owners have been held liable, are 
not applicable. It is one thing for a dog to be dangerous 
to liiinian life, and quite another to be unwilling to have 
strange dogs upon his master's premises. To attack and 
drive oft'dogs tlius suffered to go at large, to the annoy¬ 
ance, if not the detriment and danger of the puhlic, 
would be a virtue, and that is all that can be claimed, up¬ 
on the evidence, was done in this case. Owners of val¬ 
uable dogs sliotild take care of tliem, proportioned to their 
value, and keep tliem within tlicir own precincts, or un¬ 
der tlieir own eye. It is very proper to invest dogs with 
some discretion while upon tlieir master’s premises, in 
regard to other dogs, while it is palpably wrong to allow 
..a man to keep a dog, which may, or will, under any cir¬ 
cumstances, of his own volition, attack a human being. 
If owners of dogs, wliether valuable or not, suffer them to 
visit others of their species, particularly if tliey go unin¬ 
vited, they must be content to have them put up with 
dog-fare, and that their reception and treatment shall 
. be hospitalilc or iiiliospitable, according to the na¬ 
ture, or particular mood and temper at the time, of the 
dog visited. The courtesies and hospitalities of dog- 
life, cannot well be regulated by tlie judicial tribunals of 
tlie land.” (tViley vs. Slater, 22 Barb., 506). 
In Michigan tliere was a statute requiring the 
owner of every dog to procure a license for it, and 
keep it collared, and making it lawful for any per¬ 
son to kill any and all dogs going at large, not 
licensed and collared according to the provisions of 
the act. While this statute was in force, a large 
dog meeting a small but valuable one, and observ¬ 
ing it not to be properly collared and licensed ac¬ 
cording to law, proceeded to execute the law upon 
it by killing it forthwith. The owner of the slain dog 
brought suit against the owner of the canine exe¬ 
cutioner, who endeavored to shield himself under 
the provisions of the statute. But the court said : 
■**“ A statute under whicli a party is, in so summary a 
manner, to be deprived of his property, by having it 
destroyed, should not be extended by construction. 
That dogs have a value, and are the property of their 
owner, cannot be well denied at the present day, what¬ 
ever may have been the rule heretofore. And without 
questioning the power or the State to proscribe such 
regulations as may be deemed necessary and proper to 
prevent injury being done by them, yet we cannot say 
tliat where the legislature has authorized persons to kill 
dogs found running at large contrary to tlie act, the 
authority thus given to persons can, by construction, be 
so enlarged as to embrace animals also.**” (3t Mich., 283). 
The foregoing quotations indicate in a general 
way, the state of the law upon this subject. It is 
safe to say, that in the case of our inquirer, it is 
doubtful whether there could be a recovery of 
damages. The dog at the time of its injury was 
realiy a trespasser. It was at least out of its mas¬ 
ter’s control, on an expedition of its own; and if 
its master allowed it thus to go about, he must 
take the consequences of such dog fights as it may 
engage in. It seems, too, that it matters not 
whether it is, or is not the aggressor in such fights. 
A dog has its right to drive other dogs off from its 
master’s premises, and if in so doing it injures 
them, there is no liability on the part of the mas¬ 
ter. It -would be different if the master himself 
injured the prowling dogs. A man has no right to 
kill a dog simply because he finds it on his prem¬ 
ises, even though he suspects it has been doing 
mischief (60 lil., 211). If the dog is knowm to be a 
ferocious and dangerous one, and is permitted to 
run at large by its owmer, or escapes through neg¬ 
ligent keeping, its owner having knowledge or 
notice of its vicious disposition, then any person is 
justified in killing it (13 Johns, 311). So, also, one 
may kill a dog that has been bitten by a mad dog, 
or that lor any other reason is dangerous to human 
life (17 Barb., 561), but tins is the limit of the 
right. One cannot set traps for dogs, or leave poi¬ 
soned meat for them, for in either case he will be 
liable if they are thereby killed (9 East, 277). 
Where two dogs get to fighting by reason of their 
propensity to fight, as dogs often do, it is safe to 
say that neither owner is liabie for consequences. 
AVhere one keeps a dog which he knows has a 
dangerous and ugly disposition, it is his duty to so 
restrain it, that no harm can come from its evil 
propensities. He will be liable if he fails to per¬ 
form this important duty. And the rule will ap¬ 
ply where other dogs are injured, unless it can be 
clearly shown that the injured dog was trespassing, 
or that it was engaged in a common dog fight. 
A Wire Tightener. 
Mr. W. Fulmer, Allegheny Co., Fa., sends us a 
model of a wire tightener, from which the accom¬ 
panying engraving is made. It consists of a long 
wooden lever, with two pieces of iron fastened to 
it, as shown in the cut. The ends of the iron 
parts facing each other are made rough, to firmly 
hold the wire, which passes between. Though 
similar wire tighteners are furnished by the wire 
manufacturers, we present this illustration in order 
to enable every farmer, who has not one, to make 
a convenient and serviceable tightener for himself. 
Kill the Late Weeds. 
The fight with the weeds in the corn-field should 
not sloiJ with the cultivator. We have frequently 
seen farmers strive manfully against the pests 
until midsummer, and then, through negligence, 
subject themselves to annoyance through the 
next season. Some weeds have a limited season 
of growth, and if kept rooted out until mid¬ 
summer, will rarely come up again ; others con¬ 
tinue growing until severe frosts come. An old 
Illinois farmer said a cockleburr would come up in 
the morning, grow until four in the afternoon, and 
mature seeds before the frost could kill it that 
night. This is an exaggeration, yet the cockleburr 
must be fought until there are heavy frosts. The 
velvet-leaf, Jimson, and rag-weeds, will commence 
growth almost as late. Weeds are very prolific, 
and an occasional one gone to seed in the corn¬ 
field, will insure a good crop the next season. 
Corn should not be cultivated after it is tasseled, 
but the weeds can be cut out without disturbing the 
soil. For this purpose we have seen a short scythe 
used, but we much prefer a hoe with a sharp edge. 
A Plow Plank. 
A convenient device for moving a plow from one 
part of the farm to another, is shown in tiie en¬ 
graving. It consists of an inch and a half plank. 
one foot wide and eight feet long. The front end, 
a, is rounded so that it may slide along easily like 
a stone boat. A piece of stout chain, eighteen 
inches long, is fastened to the sides of the plank 
at &, 6. The point of the plow is placed under this 
chain, and is held there when the team is moving. 
A man standing on the rear end of the plank, can 
hold the plow and drive the team. A plow thus 
“ shod,” will easily pass over a meadow or lawn. 
