Heisrodt v. Hackett

Marston, J:

The plaintiff, Heisrodt, brought an action to recover dam.ages for the loss of a small but valuable dog, which had been killed by a large dog owned by, or in the possession of, the defendant.

The- defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s dog was not licensed and did not wear a collar, as required by the act of 1873, at the time he was killed.

Upon this branch of the case the court charged the jury as follows:

“1. By the law of 1873, then in force, the ownef of dogs was required to have a license running from the 1st of April of each year to -the 1st of April of the following year; and…