may make these claims. Fathers may sue. A young man borrowed his father's horse for a drive. On his way he visited a liquor - saloon, became excited with liquor, started again quite unfit to manage the horse, and drove it so violently that it died. Verdict for the father for the value of the horse.—The only son of a farmer, being upon a journey, drank at one tavern after another till he became unable to walk. He sustained two falls, in which his head was severely bruised, and from the effect of these he became sick and insane. Verdict for the father for the expenses of medical treatment and for the value of the son's services lost during his sickness.

Children may sue. Quite recently a culprit named Wall was brought forward to be sentenced for manslaughter in kicking his wife so that she died. The only element in the case to save him from a conviction for murder was that he was so much intoxicated as not to know what he was doing, hence there was no intent to kill. His counsel asked for the shortest sentence of imprisonment allowed by law, on the ground that there were four little children, who, now their mother was dead, would have no support during their father's imprisonment. But the judge disregarded this appeal. He said that the Civil Damage law imposed on the men who sold Wall the whiskey severe damages in favor of the children, and enabled them to bring an action for the loss of their father's and mother's earnings and care. And he gave a sentence of fifteen years.

A husband may sue. An intoxicated young man took his mother-in-law to ride, but drove so recklessly as to overset the wagon, throw the lady out, and break her arm. Her husband -the father-in-law-brought suit for the doctor's bill, nurse's wages, and loss of his wife's services while her arm was healing, and the court sustained his suit.

An entire stranger may sue. A drunken man attacked and beat one whom he met, and injured him so that he was thrown out of work for a considerable time. The injured person sued

the owner and landlord of the building where the rowdy bought the liquor, and the court sustained his action.

One other rule may be important. These laws appreciate the truth that not all the damage done by rumselling can be brought to strict proof. Accordingly juries are not limited to the very damages proved. Some actual injury must be shown; but after this is done, the jury may give additional damages if they think the seller deserves punishment.

Of course these cases have not been put in force without great opposition, for it throws a heavy risk and responsibility upon dealers. They have objected strongly that the law interferes with their right of property, for, they say, the essential idea of owning property, whether it is liquor or any other thing, is to be able to sell it freely. But the courts have overruled this, and have said that the plan of a Civil Damage law is perfectly just and constitutional.* It does not take away the dealer's property or hinder his selling it, but only makes him responsible for the natural consequences of his sales. A legislature has authority to impose conditions and restrictions upon the traffic such as are necessary to promote the general peace, happiness, and welfare of the people of the State.

* Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 N. Y. 509.

10

CHAPTER XXIII.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

Ir is curious to learn in how different a light animal life has been regarded in different ages and by different races.

VARIOUS VIEWS.

In some countries animals have been deified, or scrupulously protected upon the strictest religious grounds against every form of abuse or harm. This is the rule in India, and wherever the creed of Buddha prevails. Even noxious insects may not be killed. Animal life is sacred. London papers, a few years ago, mentioned a suit between two servants of a Calcutta native merchant who quarrelled over the division of their pay for "feeding bugs." The magistrate's inquiry elicited that the native merchants were much annoyed-this is nothing new-by certain pestiferous insects at night. But religion forbade these should be killed-this is a novel view to Americans. Hence servants were employed to sleep (lie awake, more likely) in the employer's bed an hour or two before his time for retiring, that the vexing appetite might be somewhat cloyed, and the master have a better chance of rest. It was the wages for this service of respect to the sacredness of insect life that the quarrelling Hindoos could not divide.

Another aspect of this topic is that, four or five centuries ago, upon the continent of Europe, animals were treated as responsible beings, amenable to legal proceedings and punishments. They were arrested and brought before courts to answer for crimes, and meantime were shut up in prison. The public prosecutor prepared a formal accusation, and a counsellor was select

ed to plead for the defendant. Witnesses were examined, and judgment gravely pronounced. If the accused animal was found guilty, the judge passed sentence of death, and this was executed with great formality, and in a variety of ways, the offending beast often being dressed in the clothing of a man. Antique European law-books contain reports of trials of swine, bulls, horses, etc., in public courts, for the offence of killing persons, and they were gravely hanged for their misdeeds.*

The ecclesiastical courts of four and five centuries ago had appropriate forms of proceeding against creatures whose prolific numbers forbade their being arrested and punished individually. Rats, in one case, were cited before the ecclesiastical tribunal for devouring the barley of the region, and their counsel established a successful defence; in substance, that his clients desired to retire from the territory, and would have done so if allowed, but had been prevented by the multiplicity of cats lying in wait to destroy them!-Western farmers troubled by grasshoppers may find a hint in a case where the locusts were prosecuted for their ravages, and a sentence of anathema pronounced against them.In Mayence the Spanish flies, and in Savoy the weevils, were indicted at a public trial. Their counsel succeeded in obtaining a decree that a distant territory might be assigned them to which they might retire! A good precedent for the Colorado potatobug.-In Valence a plague of caterpillars was prosecuted. The points of law raised were so numerous and difficult, and the trial was spun out so long, that the insects all died before judgment was pronounced!-Instances of this procedure are found as late as the earliest settlements in America. In Brazil there was a case of proceedings against swarms of ants; and in early Canada, turtle-doves were excommunicated for mischief they had done.

Another aspect of this topic is the doctrine of transmigration of souls. This tenet is that, upon the death of a human being,

* Many such cases are narrated in Agnel's Procès contre les Animaux.

the animating principle, or soul, passes into the body of some animal; and, upon its death, into that of another; and, after a long series of such changes, will return to the original form. This is a very ancient belief; it is popularly attributed to Pythagoras, yet he derived it, probably, from the Egyptians. It involves, as a consequence, that the same respect is due to the security of animal life as is paid to that of man; for he who hurts an animal is really inflicting pain or injury upon the soul of some man. This idea has not been abandoned. In one form or another it is held by many millions of people of races deemed heathen; and it has been avowed by individuals among civilized nations. In particular, this was the faith of Louis Bonard, a French gentleman who died in New York city in 1871, and who bequeathed a large fortune to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, an institution which had been for a few years endeavoring, with limited means, but with remarkable efficiency and success, to introduce a reform in laws and conduct affecting the brute creation.

THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COMMON LAW.

Early English and American law never recognized animals as either worthy of any such regard or amenable to any such responsibility as is above described. One or two instances in which such ideas have been discussed in the courts are entertaining. There was, for instance, the great case of the New York dog-fight.* It was commenced, as great cases sometimes are, in a little justice's court, where the owner of a dog killed in a dog-fight recovered a verdict for twenty-five dollars and costs against the owner of the other dog. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the cause came before that eminent humorist, Judge Allen. He reversed the judgment. He said, "The branch of the law applicable to conflicts and collisions be

*Wiley v. Slater, 22 Barb. 506.