1900 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
7 67 
THE LEGAL STATUS OF A DOG. 
Sheep-Killing and Trespass in Various States. 
Under the law of animals it is interesting to note 
the prominence given by our courts to the present 
legal status of the dog; the liability of his owner for 
his trespassing propensity, and the right to kill a 
dog by any aggrieved person. It appears that a dog 
has not equal protection under the law with other 
animals, and may be destroyed under any circum¬ 
stance where it is absolutely necessary for the pre¬ 
servation of property. Other animals may become 
vicious and injure person and property, and the in¬ 
jured person have his action, but may not kill them. 
The discrimination against dogs results legitimate¬ 
ly from their proneness to mischief and their liabil¬ 
ity to hydrophobia. The law authorizes the act of 
killing a dog found on a man’s premises in the act 
of attempting to destroy his sheep or other domestic 
or reclaimed animals used for human food, and un¬ 
able to defend themselves. Where a dog pursues a 
deer in a park or fowls in a poultryyard it is a suffi¬ 
cient justification of the shooting to state that fact, 
without adding that i„ was necessary to shoot to 
prevent his doing the injury; but the latter 
statement must be made with substantial 
proof, where a dog is pursuing a fowl not in 
an inclose. In Iowa the court held that 
the killing of a dog was justified because he 
was worrying chickens, and that he need not 
be in the act at the very instant he is shot, 
provided his conduct could excite reasonable 
apprehension; and “to worry” is held by the 
Iowa court to mean “to run after, to chase, 
to bark at,” etc. The general rule is that 
where a dog chases and bites an animal, in 
order to justify killing him it must be shown 
that the animals could not otherwise be sep¬ 
arated. Thus, where a muzzled dog is at¬ 
tacked by another dog the latter may be 
killed by the owner of the former if it is 
necessary to save him from serious injury. 
On the other hand, to kill a dog simply be¬ 
cause he is suspected of having done injury 
upon the premises previously is a trespass; 
no one but the master, as a rule, has the 
right to kill a dog. The disposition of a dog 
to drive off stock trespassing on his master’s 
premises is not a vicious propensity which 
will justify the owner of the stock in killing 
him, unless he is a common nuisance. 
Under the California statute it has been 
held that a dog killed for chasing sheep must 
be actually doing the act when found and 
immediately followed up; he cannot subse¬ 
quently be Killed to prevent his return. A 
similar rule exists in Iowa. At common law 
the owner of sheep is not justifiable in shoot¬ 
ing a dog in a field some distance off. Where 
a master issued a general order to destroy 
all dogs found on his grounds, and his ser¬ 
vants accordingly killed two dogs that were 
trespassing in one of the master’s fields, and 
near a flock of valuable sheep, the court held 
both the master and the servants were liable 
in damages. If a dog is known to be a sheep- 
killer and is found in a field of one having 
sheep, it is not necessary to wait until he is 
near his prey, annoying and worrying the 
sheep, before he is killed. But the case is 
very different when this is not the character 
of the dog. But there are many statutory 
exceptions to this rule, especially in the case 
of sheep-killing dogs. In Missouri a dog 
that has killed or maimed a sheep or other 
domestic animal must be killed by the own¬ 
er, and may be killed by anyone; it is not 
necessary that he should be on the premises, 
or in the act of killing, or that knowledge on 
the part of his owner should be shown. The same rule 
prevails in Delaware. In North Carolina it was held 
that the owner of sheep is justified in killing a dog 
which had destroyed some of his sheep and returned 
to his premises apparently for the purpose of de¬ 
stroying others, though at the time he was not in the 
very act of killing or worrying the sheep, nor was it 
shown that the owner knew of his bad qualities, or 
that the injury could not have been otherwise pre¬ 
vented. 
Knowledge of a particular injury committed by a 
dog is sufficient to make the owner liable for injuries 
of a similar kind. Thus where a dog killed sheep, 
evidence was admitted that four years before he had 
attacked and bitten a child to the defendant’s knowl¬ 
edge. If a dog becomes mischievous and inclined to 
injure the property of others, his owner is bound to 
restrain him on the first notice, and liable for any 
mischief he may thereafter do to property of any kind. 
If a dog is known to have killed one sheep a jury from 
their knowledge of the dog may infer that he would 
kill another, if an opportunity presented itself. In 
such case the owner would in law be liable because 
of his knowledge of previous guilt. Where ihe own¬ 
ers of dogs showed that the Summer before their 
dogs had gone among their sheep without molesting 
them it was held competent for the plaintiffs, in an 
action for damages, L o prove that sheep-killing dogs 
are not accustomed to attack the sheep of their own¬ 
ers, but that they go away to do it. 
In Massachusetts, where a statute provides that 
every owner or keeper of a dog should “forfeit to any 
person injured by such dog double the amount of 
damages sustained by him,” it was held that each 
owner was liable only for the damages done by his 
own dog and not for the whole damage done by the 
two dogs. But where the statute of the same State 
made the owner of a dog injuring sheep liable for “all 
damages so done,” he was held liable for all damages 
in the doing of which the dog took part with other 
dogs, and it was held to be no defence that one of 
the dogs so engaged belonged to the sheep-owner. In 
Ohio, Pennsylvania and Vermont, by statute, the 
owner of a dog that injures or kills sheep is often 
made liable for the entire amount of damages done 
with other dogs. R. d. f. 
TRUMPET CREEPER, TECOMA RADICANS. Fig. 295. 
See Ruralisms, Page 760. 
A VIEW OF A BATTLEFIELD. 
Antietam Thirty-Eight Years After. 
During our trip to the peach growing section of the 
Maryland mountains we visited the battlefield of An¬ 
tietam. Leaving the cars at Keedysville we drove 
over the mountains to Mr. Pry’s peach orchard. We 
followed the pike road along which the Union soldiers 
under McClellan marched to attack Lee. Doubtless 
some .R. N.-Y. readers marched over the same road 
38 years ago with muskets on their shoulders. After 
visiting Mr. Pry’s orchard we drove on around the 
mountain top until at a lonely place on the road we 
came to the strange structure shown at Fig. 293. This 
is McClellan’s tower, from which the- Union general 
overlooked the great battle which had such a far- 
reaching effect upon the history of our country. This 
tower was strongly built originally, but has not been 
cared for, and is now falling in decay. The lower 
stairs have broken down, but we mounted the rails 
and beheld a glorious view. 
Far off across the valley we saw dimly outlined an¬ 
other range of hills. Below us lay an ideal place for 
a great battle. The land is slightly rolling, with lit¬ 
tle mounds and depressions where bodies of men might 
rally in safety. A retreat up or down that valley 
must have been a constant succession of fights and 
advances. Antietam River wound its crooked way— 
creeping into the shadow of the trees or glittering in 
the sun as it reached the open. The battle was fought 
September 16-18, 1862, and our view was taken on Sep¬ 
tember 21, so that we saw the field about as it was 
then, except that farmers had not gathered their crops 
at the time of the fighting. From our lofty perch we saw 
the whole scheme of the battle. A gray stone obser¬ 
vation tower stood in the center of the field, and here 
and there white monuments marked the scene of some 
fierce conflict. 
To the left was Burnside’s Bridge, where again and 
again the Union soldiers tried to force their way 
across the Antietam. Bloody Lane, the old Dunkard 
Church and other “corners of Hell” were away to the 
right. There must have been sad hearts on that tower 
when, in the afternoon, tne Union army was driven 
back to the river, disorganized and terribly punished. 
■ Had Lee been able to stand where I stood 
that day he would have taken in the situa¬ 
tion at a glance, rushed forward with his 
troops and probably crushed the Union 
Army. As it was he hesitated until McClel¬ 
lan reformed his army and then Lee fell back 
across the Potomac. My father fought at 
Antietam. He was one of the human pup¬ 
pets with which the awful game of freedom 
was played. As I stood there looking over 
that sun-gilded valley I could not help re¬ 
membering how the weight and scourge of 
that battle rested on the heart and soul of 
the man in the White House at Washington. 
President Lincoln had registered a vow that 
if Lee were driven out of Maryland he would 
issue his emancipation proclamation. It was 
issued just 38 years before the day on which 
we viewed the battlefield. What would have 
been his thoughts could he have stood on 
McClellan’s tower that day and seen one af¬ 
ter another of the Union divisions driven 
back! We live to-day in an age of smaller 
and meaner things. One must stand in a 
place like this to realize how men must suf¬ 
fer and die for their country and how again 
and again, as the world goes on, the old story 
of the cross must be lived and acted if men 
are to be kept free. 
After leaving the tower we drove back to 
Keedysville and then along the road through 
the battlefield. It is easy to tell where the 
troops were posted. Tablets are arranged to 
show where each army corps entered the 
field and where they advanced or fell back. 
I should think it would be easy for an old 
soldier to find his place in the field. On a 
gentle rise of ground where, during the bat¬ 
tle the Confederate artillery was posted, is 
tne National Cemetery. It is a holy place. 
There are deep shadows under the thick 
trees, a solemn quiet broods over it. A loud 
laugh would seem almost profane in such a 
place. Standing in long rows, crowding close 
together in the thick green grass, each one 
marked by a low white stone, are the graves 
of thousands of soldiers who died on that 
terrible field. In the center stands the no¬ 
blest monument I have ever seen, a gigan¬ 
tic figure of a Union soldier. Carved out of 
granite it towers high in the air. Leaning 
on his musket the soldier stands looking out 
over the graves of his comrades to the scene 
of their mighty struggle. It is impossible to 
convey by means of words an idea of the 
wonderful power expressed by that figure or the firm, 
hopeful determination in that face. Carved on the 
stone beneath it are these words: 
‘‘Not for themselves but for their country'.” 
I would that every citizen of this country could face 
that statue and realize what those words mean. Then 
it might perhaps be said that the awful curse and 
crime of such battles as Antietam were not in vain. 
I would that men could understand that it is nobler 
and better to live for their country than it is to die 
for it, and that it will be glorified if at all in the hum¬ 
ble, peaceful battles of common, every-day life. 
h. w. c. 
That was quite an idea I saw carried out this morning 
as I was coming down the road. There was a heavy load 
to move, and after the usual custom, teams were doubled 
going up the hills. When it came to going down hill it 
never occurred to me that teams could then be doubled, 
too. But here they were, the leaders were put behind 
the load and a long chain hitched from the hind to the 
neckyoke. The team behind could then hold back even 
more than the one ahead, for the pull was downward 
with them. H - H - 
