Kolinski v. Klein

• Decision Date: 13 December 1923
• Citation: 100 Conn. 127,122 A. 914
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: KOLINSKI v. KLEIN.

122 A. 914

100 Conn. 127

KOLINSKI v. KLEIN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 13, 1923

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas Court, New Haven County; Ernest C Simpson, Judge.

Action by Alice Kolinski against Fritz Klein. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.

George E. Beers and Charles F. Roberts, both of New Haven, for appellant.

John J. Sullivan, of New Haven, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and BEACH, CURTIS, KEELER, and KELLOGG JJ.

KELLOGG, J.

This is an action claiming damages for the unlawful killing of a registered dog, brought under the provisions of section 3408 of the General Statutes, reading in part as follows:

" Every person who shall steal or confine and secrete any registered dog or any dog under the age of six months, * * * or who shall unlawfully kill or injure any such dog, shall be liable to the owner in a civil action."

In this action the killing of the dog is admitted and the main question in controversy is whether or not this dog was legally registered at the time of the killing. Also there is no dispute as to any of the facts involved concerning the alleged registration, the final question of registration being one purely of law to be determined upon conceded facts.

In 1920 the dog had been registered in the town clerk's office of the then town of Orange, as owned and kept by one Nellie Kolinski, who was a minor daughter of the plaintiff and at all times resided with her. On April 28, 1921, the plaintiff went to the town clerk of the town of Orange and told him she wanted to register the " Kolinski dog," and stated in response to an inquiry by the town clerk that it was the same dog she had last year. The plaintiff could speak very little English and could neither read nor write. The town clerk, in accordance with the custom in such cases when the dog had been previously registered, turned to the prior registration for a description of this dog, but by inadvertence turned to the registration of a dog under the name of one John Klecowski, who lived on the same street and had a dog also named Prince, the name of the plaintiff's dog. He thereupon copied this description of this dog and registered the plaintiff's dog in the name of John Klecowski, and gave the plaintiff a certificate of such registration and a metal tag bearing the number of the certificate of registration. The plaintiff thereupon paid him the required registration fee of $1.25, and took the certificate to her home and placed this tag on the collar of her dog. In the following month the town clerk discovered his error, placed the number on the plaintiff's certificate upon the index card of her daughter, but did not issue a new certificate of registration.

So far as the registration of the dog was concerned it is quite apparent from this statement that with the exception of the making out of the certificate of registration the plaintiff had done all that could be required of the...