Thurston v. Carter

Decision Date23 November 1914
Citation92 A. 295,112 Me. 361
PartiesTHURSTON v. CARTER.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Knox County, at Law.

Action by Carl W. Thurston against Alonzo A. Carter. Directed verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and CORNISH, BIRD, HALEY, HANSON, and PHILBROOK, JJ.

L. M. Staples, of Washington, for plaintiff.

Frank B. Miller, of Rockland, for defendant.

BIRD, J. This action of trespass is brought for the recovery of damages for the killing of the fox hound of plaintiff by defendant. The latter, in justification, under Pub. Laws 1909, c. 222, § 17, claimed that he shot and killed the plaintiff's dog while it was chasing and worrying a cat belonging to and upon the land of the defendant. After the introduction of all the evidence, the court ordered a verdict for defendant To this direction, plaintiff filed his bill of exceptions in which it is stipulated that if a cat is a domestic animal, the ruling below is to stand, otherwise judgment is to be entered for plaintiff in the sum of $50.

That portion of section 17, c. 222, Pub. Laws 1909, which defendant invokes is as follows:

"Any person may lawfully kill a dog which * * * is found worrying, wounding, or killing any domestic animal, when said dog is outside of the inclosure or immediate care of its owner or keeper."

The enactment is entirely free from technical words or phrases. It is therefore to be construed according to the common meaning of the language. R. S. c. 1, § 6, subd. 1; State v. Harriman, 75 Me. 567, 46 Am. Rep. 423. "Domestic" has been variously defined by lexicographers, but with substantial uniformity of meaning. "Inhabiting the house, not wild." Johnson's Dictionary. "Belonging to the house or household; domesticated; tame." Standard Diet "Living in or near the habitations of man; domesticated; tame as distinguished from wild; living by habit or special training in association with man." Webster's New Int. Diet. "Relating to or belonging to the home or household, or to household affairs." Cent. Dict. "Pertaining, belonging, or relating to a house." Black's Law Diet. See, also, Kimball v. Water Co., 107 Me. 467, 469, 78 Atl. 865, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 805. It is a broad term; Osborn v. Lenox, 2 Allen (Mass.) 207, 209.

The cat is defined as "A domestic animal that catches mice." Johnson's Diet. "A well-known domesticated carnivorous mammal, kept to kill mice and rats and as a house pet." Standard Diet "A carnivorous quadruped (felis domestica) which has long been kept by man in a domestic state, as a pet and for catching rats and mice; * * * [it] is not known in the wild state." Webster's New Int. Diet.

The time of its first domestication is lost in the mists of the dawn of history, but it is apparent that the cat was a domestic animal among the early Egyptians, by whom it came to be regarded as sacred, as evidenced by the device of Cambyses during his invasion of Egypt B. C. 525 or 527, which could scarcely have been feasible if the animal was then wild. From that day to this it has been a dweller in the homes of men. In no other animal has affection for home been more strongly developed, and in none, when absent from home, can the animus revertendi be more surely assumed to exist.

"But the common law has * * * adopted the test laid down by Puffendorf, by referring the question whether the animal be wild or tame to our knowledge of his habits, derived from fact and experience." 2 Kent, § 849.

It is clear, therefore, from the popular meaning of the word "domestic" and from our knowledge of its habits gained from fact and experience that the cat is a domestic animal.

In the Laws of England it is laid down that "the common law follows the civil law in classifying animals in two divisions as follows :

"(1) Domestic or tame (domitæ or mansuetæ naturæ). This class includes cattle, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, poultry, cats, dogs, and all other animals which by habit or training live in association with man. 1 Halsbury, 365."

And following this definition, the same author declares that:

"Domestic animals, like other personal and movable chattels, are the subject of absolute property. The owner can maintain trover for them, and retains his property in them if they stray or are lost." Id.

See, also, Yates v. Higgins, L. R., 1 Q. B. D. 1896, 166; Harper v. Marcks, L. R. 189, 2 Q. B. D. 319, 322, 323.

But it is urged that the cat is not the subject of larceny, and therefore its owner can have but a qualified property therein. Among the ancient Britons it was held to have intrinsic value, and the theft of a cat was punishable by fine. When, however, larceny became punishable capitally, the courts, to mitigate the severity of the law, held that certain animals were not the subject of larceny as not fit for food, or as base, or as kept only for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Must Hatch Incubator Co. v. Patterson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • May 14, 1928
    ...S. 136, 47 S. Ct. 548, 71 L. Ed. 966; Clark v. Poor, 274 U. S. 554, 47 S. Ct. 702, 71 L. Ed. 1199. Defendants in 341-E cite Thurston v. Carter, 112 Me. 361, 92 A. 295, L. R. A. 1915C, 359, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 389; 1 Halsbury, 365; Holcomb v. Van Zylen, 174 Mich. 274, 140 N. W. 521, 44 L. R. A.......
  • Acheson v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1952
    ...time it has a much broader significance which must be determined in reference to the matter in which its appears. Thurston v. Carter, 112 Me. 361, 364, 92 A. 295, L.R.A. 1915C, 359. It is often used to distinguish from that which is foreign, or outside the state. It is used to distinguish f......
  • Commonwealth v. Flynn
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 11, 1934
    ...animal,’ were held to include tame rabbits (Chapman v. Decrow, 93 Me. 378, 45 A. 295,74 Am. St. Rep. 357) and cats (Thurston v. Carter, 112 Me. 361, 92 A. 295, L. R. A. 1915C, 359, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 389). The statute here to be interpreted employs the broad term ‘any domesticated animal. Com......
  • Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Gordon
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1939
    ...must fall within the category of ferae naturae. Ballentine's Law Dictionary, "Domestic;" Thurston v. Carter, 112 Me. 361, L.R.A. 1915C 359, 92 A. 295. evidence shows that three of these animals, at least, escaped from the cattle car of this defendant. It shows that these animals were wild a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT