State v. Cornnall

This was a prosecution against the appellee, who was auditor of Vigo county, for refusing to charge upon the tax duplicate against the owner of a dog, the penalty provided by law for keeping the animal. The sixth section of the act of March 2, 1865, “to discourage the *121keeping of useless and sheep-killing dogs, and providing penalties for the violation of any of the provisions of said act by officers and others,” &c., authorizes the proceeding contemplated in this case. A motion to quash the informa■tion was sustained. This was error. We have held the act cited to be constitutional. Mitchell…