Notes of Recent Cases. DOGS. (STATUS AS PROPERTY— NEGLIGENT KILLING —LIABILITY OF RAILROAD COMPANY.) GEORGIA SUPREME COURT.
in Strong v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co., 47 Southeastern Reporter 366, it is held, following Jemison v. Southwestern Railroad, 75 Ga. 444, 58 Am. Rep. 476, that a suit cannot be maintained against a railroad com pany for the negligent killing of a dog. In an opinion in which he concurs under pro test, Justice Cobb quotes from an opinion of a lower court, containing a half humorous, half eloquent tribute to the canine creation: "The dog has figured very extensively in the past and present. In mythology, as Cerberus, he was intrusted with watching the gates of hell, and he seems to have per formed his duties so well that there were but few escapes. . . . Few men will forget the song of their childhood, which runs: "'Old dog Tray's ever faithful; Grief cannot drive him away; He is gentle, he is kind; I'll never, never find A better friend than old dog Tray.' "Nor can any of us fail to remember the intelligent animal on whose behalf 'Old Mother Hubbard went to the cupboard.' "Few men have deserved, and few have won, higher praise in an epitaph than the following which was written by Lord Byron in regard to his dead Newfoundland: 'Near this spot are deposited the remains of one who possessed beauty without vanity, strength without insolence, courage without ferocity, and all the virtues of man without his vices. This praise, which would he un meaning flattery if inscribed over human ashes, is but a just tribute to the memory of Boatswain, a dog.' The dog has ever invaded the domain of art. All who have seen Sir Edwin Landseer's great picture will know how much human intelligence can be expressed in the face of a dog. His picture entitled 'Laying Down and Law' will not be forgotten in considering the dog as a liti gant. Thus the dog has figured in mythol ogy, history, poetry, fiction, and art from the earliest times down to the present, and
now in these closing days of the nineteenth century we are called upon to decide wheth er a dog is a wild animal (ferœ naturae) in such sense as not to be leviable property; or, if he is a domestic animal (domitœ nature), whether he is not subject to levy, on the ancient theory that he had no intrinsic value if he was not good to eat. . . . "The dog has been very often before the courts of the different States and of differ ent countries, and has been the subject of a good deal of judicial humor and judicial learning, but it bears a tinge of the ridicu lous to contend that, however many and however valuable dogs a man may own, he cannot be made to pav his debts if he will onlv invest his money in dogs—a contention which reminds one of the very solemn dis cussions in a certain court, at a time not very long past, as to whether the oyster was a wild animal. . . . Let it be remembered that in a trover case the plantiff has the op tion of t? kin т a verdict for the property or a monev verdict. If he should take a money verdict, surely the law did not contemplate that he should sit in court with his judgment and fi. fa. in his pocket, and watch the de fendant carry the dog away, because, al though he could recover a judgment for its value, he could not realize it by levy." FIRECRACKERS. (ORDINANCE PROHIBITING EX PLOSION —CONSENT OF MAYOR.)
MISSOURI COURT ov APPEALS.
In City of Centralia v. Smith, 77 South western Reporter, 488, the conviction of the defendant for exploding firecrackers within the city limits on the fourth of July, is re vived. An ordinance of the city prohibited the explosion of firecrackers without the written consent of the mayor. This is held to be within the police power of the city and not void as delegating legislative power to the mayor. A number of defenses are then discussed, and it is held no defense that pre vious violators of the ordinance had not been prosecuted; that defendant had participated with most of the citizens in violating the ordinance on previous occasions on which the mayor had charge of the fireworks. It
