Zanetta v. Bolles
Supreme Court of Vermont
. Trespass for shooting a dog. Heard on an agreed statement of facts by the City Court of the city of Barre on May 6, 1907, Scott, J. Judgment for defendant to recover his costs. The plaintiff excepted.
Read the full summary
. Trespass for shooting a dog. Heard on an agreed statement of facts by the City Court of the city of Barre on May 6, 1907, Scott, J. Judgment for defendant to recover his costs. The plaintiff excepted. The agreed statement of facts is as follows : ‘ ‘ The plaintiff is a resident of the city of Barre, and was a resident of said city on December 26, 1905, on which day he went hinting rabbits in the town of Marshfield in said county of Washington, taking with him his beagle hound. The hound was'duly licensed, registered and collared. The defendant is a resident of Marshfield, and was on said…
1Opinion of the CourtRowell, C. J.
The defendant, an inhabitant of the State, in the close season, shot and'killed the plaintiff’s duly licensed, registered, and collared dog while, with other dogs, it was worrying and attacking a wild deer on the defendant’s enclosed land, and thereby saved the life of the deer. The defendant says that as he was an inhabitant of the State at the time, he had such a qualified property in the deer that he had a right to kill the dog in order to protect it. But that is not so. The wild game in the State belongs to the people of the State in their collective and sovereign capacity, and not in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Payne v. SheetsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. HaskellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Villa v. ThayerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1917
- Bondi v. MacKaySupreme Court of Vermont · 1913
- Jones v. MetcalfSupreme Court of Vermont · 1923
- State v. LongCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000