The Law of the Land.
449
THE LAW OF THE LAND. By Wm. Arch. McClean. VIII. OUR PET ANIMALS. DE GUSTIBUS NON EST DISPUTANDUM;
which being interpreted, as everyone knows, is that there is no disputing about tastes. Confidentially this is no Latin legal' maxim, the quotation is indulged in for the mere purpose of illustrating its truth as to animal pets, for one old maid will dote on one cat, another cannot exist with less than a half dozen cats, and still another will abhor cats. Run over the list of people you know or have known and make a list of their pets. One has a big dog, another a middle-sized dog, still another a very diminutive dog. Others have birds of every description and kind, squirrels, rabbits, a lamb, a goat, a fox, a wolf, an alligator, even a horned toad. When tastes run to curiosities there is no knowing what the last freak may be. When there is no disputing about tastes and every individual believes his or her taste as to pets is a laudable one, to be indulged at one's whim, it is not to be wondered at that courts have been frequently called up on to declare the law of the land as to animals. Taste is a particularly sensitive subject, as lawyers have remuneratively learned to know in this direction. The law divides animals into two classes, namely, such as are domitae, or commonly known as domestic animals, and such as are ferae naturae, or of a wild disposition. The kind of ownership that an individual may have in either of these classes is quite dif ferent and distinct. The ownership in those classed as domestic animals, as horses, cattle, sheep, and the like, is absolute, being such an absolute property in domestic ani mals as shall entitle one to maintain an
action against anyone for killing or injuring them, as shall entitle one to have him who should steal them punished, as shall make the owner liable for damages done by his domestic animals under certain circum stances. In animals of a wild nature a man has only a limited or qualified property which continues only so long as they are under his dominion and control, such as where he housed or confined them so that they cannot escape, or where he has edu cated or tamed them. If they escape from him or regain their natural liberty, his property in them instantly ceases, unless they are known to have a habit of returning whence they escaped. It is such a qualified ownership that one under many circum stances cannot maintain an action for the killing or injuring of them, or a criminal prosecution for the larceny of them, and is not himself always liable for damages com mitted by them. There are, however, many exceptions to this limited property in wild animals. The decisions are numerous in which the question of ownership of animals is consid ered, and in which delicate distinctions are called forth. The law as stated is well set tled as to the larger domestic animals, such as horses, cattle, sheep and the like. The smaller animals and the freaks are those that frequently call out the mental powers of the court's reasoning to a nicety. Ownership in the dog is complete now, though it was not in the days of Blackstone; a man may have damages for the killing and injury of his dog, his dog may be stolen and the thief punished, and the owner is liable for the damages done by his dog, if he knows of the
