Rhode Island American And Providence Gazette

PROVIDENCE.
FRIDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 26, 1828.
Shooting Dogs.—A case was tried at the recent term of the Court of Common Pleas in this town, of some interest to the owners of favorite dogs. It was an action of Trespass on the case, brought by Benjamin E. Rider, to recover damages of Samuel E. Brown, for shooting his dog. It appeared in evidence that the animal was a small watch dog, entirely inoffensive, and possessed of good qualities, which were testified to by several witnesses with almost as much feeling as if the subject of their eulogy had been a rational being. On one occasion he had saved the life of a child of one of the witnesses, Plaintiff's father, with whom the Plaintiff resided, by dragging the child out of the water. He was, therefore, deservedly a great favorite in the family. Plaintiff's father occupied a yard, on one side of which stood the house and shop occupied by Defendant. Defendant had threatened to shoot the dog if he ever caught him at large.—The animal was never tied, but suffered to go in and out of the house, yard &c. at pleasure, but his good habits generally kept him at home. Sometime in September last, the dog went with a person employed by Plaintiff's father, into the yard, and while within twenty inches of the man, a gun was discharged at him from Defendant's window, which killed the dog on the spot. It was also proved that Defendant discharged the gun, and that he had said he did it out of spite.
The defence set up was the ordinance of the town council, authorizing the killing of dogs found at large, unless led by some person, with a string attached to them, not more than six feet long, and it was contended that as the dog was not secured, but could go where he pleased, he was at large within the meaning of the ordinance. This was denied on the part of the Plaintiff, and the term "at large within the town of Providence" construed so as not to include private premises. A different construction, it was urged, would justify a person in entering a man's house and shooting his dog before his face unless he had hold of a string tied to the animal.—The Jury were out but a few minutes, and returned with a verdict of sixteen dollars damages and costs.
[This trial should serve as a caution for those who attempt to make the law against dogs, an excuse for killing these useful animals, when there is no occasion for destroying them. They must be found actually running at large in the streets, to justify the act.]