Commonwealth v. Hazelwood
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 87 — INDICTMENT APPEAL FROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT. In every place where our statutes mention dogs, the fact that they are owned and are property is a central idea. They are, therefore, clearly the subject of larceny. (Supplement to Revised Statutes, page 189; General Statutes, page 179; 1 Parker (N. Y.), 593; 4 Parker (N. Y.), 386.)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HOLT
delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question presented by this appeal is, whether, under the laws of this State, a dog can be the subject of larceny. Undoubtedly, the rule was otherwise at common law. By it, larceny could be committed of such domestic animals as cattle and sheep, and of domestic fowls as hens and ducks, because they serve for food, and were,- as Lord Hale says, “under propriety.” This was true also as to beasts or birds, ferce natura, when made tame, if they served for food; such as deer and pheasants, provided the thief knew them to have been reclaimed.…
2Cited by11 opinions
- McGlone v. WomackCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Hamby v. SamsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Commonwealth v. FlynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Bond v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930
- Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2006
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.