« ZurückWeiter »
for the chase and chained when not in that they are not confined by enclosures pursuit of game; that when shot he, to a certain field or place, nor under followed by his master, and by S, who the immediate care of a shepherd or had joined in the chase in accordance herdsman; that they are left to roam with a previous understanding between wherever they may go. Now, if they the two, was in pursuit of a fox which are left in an enclosure which is inhe had just driven to cover and about sufficient to restrain them, they are eviwhich he was playing, out of sight and dently running at large, for they are hearing of his master but near S. Held, not under the control of the owner. that the dog when shot was not "run- If placed in such an enclosure and they ning at large.” Wright 2. Clark, 50 Vt. escape from it and go upon the track of 130; s. c., 6 Repr. 409; 28 Am. Rep. 496. an unfenced railroad they will be conThe court, after citing the above case, sidered as “running at large.' And say: “This is so recent and so full a see,
effect, Hamdefinition of these words that nothing mond v. The C. & N. W.R. Co., 43 further need be added. The dog is the Iowa 168. most tractable of animals, and yields Where a penalty was imposed on most readily to restraint other than suffering rams to run at large, the court physical. The voice and look of his said, in Goener v. Woll, 26 Minn. 157: master are often more potent to restrain "We think that the statute uses the him than cord or chain. He is often words ‘at large in the sense of 'withtrained so that at his master's command out restraint or confinement,' in ache will remain by and guard his prop- cordance with the definition given in erty for a whole day in the absence of Webster's Dictionary. The principal his master, or go out of sight and object of the statute we take to be the miles away and gather in his flocks and protection of the owners of ewes, both herds. Different species have special as respects the breed of lambs and the instincts which render them particularly time of yeaning. Now, whether a ram susceptible to training and restraint in is allowed to go at large—that is, without certain directions. The trained hound, restraint or confinement—upon his when pursuing the fox or deer with and owner's land, or upon other lands, the at his master's bidding, is no risk to owners of ewes in the neighbor'strolling without restraint' or 'wander- hood still exists; and the only way to ing, roving or rambling at will’ than a put an end to it is to so confine or reboy while going on an errand at his mas- strain him that he cannot roam where ter's command. Either, when out of sight he pleases. This may be done by and hearing of the master, have it in keeping him in an enclosure, by tying their power to 'stroll without restraint' him, by watching him, and perhaps in or 'rove at will;' but neither do, so long other ways. It seems to us, therefore, as they continuously and rigorously that there can be no doubt that the pursue the thing commanded. Hence words ‘at large are used in the sense the fact that the dog when shot was out before indicated. It follows that if a of sight and hearing of his master is ram is suffered to go about without renot determinative of whether he was straint or confinement, even though it “running at large.' If the plaintiff's be upon land belonging to his owner, or testimony gained credit, when shot, the of which such owner has a rightful use, dog was in hot pursuit of the fox in he runs at large within the meaning of obedience to the command of the the statute." plaintiff, with all his instincts urging Cattle driven along a road in charge him thereto as each bound brought of a herder, which, in passing, casually nearer and nearer the coveted prize. eat of the grass growing on the road. We do not think such a dog thus run: side are not "estray” or “running at ning is, within the meaning of the large," nor are they rendered so by the statute, running at large."
fact that the herder accidentally falls Jennings v. Wayne, 63 Me. 468 (vol. I, asleep while attending them. supra, 891).
Thompson v. Corpstein, 52 Cal. 653. In the case of stock killed upon a rail. And see Bertwhistle v. Goodrich, 53 road track, it was said in Hinman v. Mich. 457, where it was held that cattle Chic. R. I. & Pac. R. Co., 28 Iowa in anybody's charge are not “running 494: "In our opinion, the words 'run- at large." If the marshal of a town ning at large, as used in the section seizes sheep as "running at large” within above named, import that the stock are its limits, and on trial of an action to not under the control of the owner; replevy them, testifies that there was a
boy with the sheep but he did not know Compare Com. V. Dow,
10 Metc. what he was doing, while several per- (Mass.) 382 (vol. 1, supra, 891). sons testity that the boy was herding A horse driven across depot grounds the sheep and had them under his con- held not “running at large." Johnson trol, there is not such a conflict in the r'. Chic. & N. W. R. Co., 35 Am. & evidence as will justify a court in find- Eng. R. Cas. 131 (Iowa). ing that the sheep were "running at A sucking colt, following its mother, large." Spect Arnold, 52 Cal. which was in the plaintiff's control, 455.
strayed and was injured by defendant's A team of horses attached to a sleigh train. Held, that the cost under such and wandering on the prairie at night, circumstances must be deemed to have driven by a man in a drunken stupor, been “running at large." “The fact are not live stock running at large.” that the colt was a sucking colt and its Grove 2". Burlington etc. Co., 39 N. W. mother was in the control of the Rep. 248 (Iowa). A dog following its plaintiff did not, we think, hold that the owner is not "running at large." colt was in such control. It might perSpencer'. City of St. Catharines, 23 haps under ordinary circumstances be Can. L. J. 167, where it is said: "Several expected to follow its mother, but there cases can be found under the act against was nothing but its own inclination to horses or cattle being at large upon restrict its freedom and prevent it from any highway within half a mile of any straving, and we think that it must be railway unless in charge of some per- deemed to have been running at large.” son to prevent their loitering or stop- Smith 7. The K. C. St. J. & C. B. R. ping at the intersection (20 Vict., ch. Co., 58 Iowa 622. 12, Ø 16). See Cooley v. G. T. R. Co., A steer with eighty cattle was being 18 Ľ. C. R. 95; Markham r'. G. W. R. herded by a boy, who left them for an Co., 25 U. C. R. 572. In these great indefinite period and went home. stress was laid on the necessity of the Another boy returned and drove the animals being in charge of some person, cattle hurriedly across a railway track, and upon the object of public safety without noticing the steer, which contemplated by the legislature. In the had separated from the rest and been case of Hillyard 7. G. T. R. Co., 8 Ont. left behind, and subsequently was killed R. 583, it was held that a colt which while crossing the track. Held, that was injured by a wire fence of defend the steer was “running at large." Valants could not be said to be running at lean v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., large, as it was following its dam, which 36 N. W. Rep. 760 (Iowa). was being led by a man with a halter In Welsh 7. The C. B. & Q. R. Co.. along the road, as that is the customary 53 Iowa 632, it is said: “The evidence way and the universal custom ought to shows that when the horse was injured give the rule. I have found some cases he had on a bridle with the rein over in the American reports, but they do his head, and a halter rope, which was not appear to be uniform.
The untied and dragging. It is urged that council have chosen to use the word the animal was not running at large ‘roam' in their by-law, and this word within the meaning of the statute. The may narrow, although it cannot extend, court instructed the jury as follows: the ineaning of the word in the act, The words “running at large," as used which is run at large. I do not, how in the statute, import that the stock are ever, see that there is any appreciable not under the control of the owners; difference in the two words. I think that that they are not confined by enboth mean 'wandering about at will,' to closure to a certain field or place, adopt the expression made use of by under the immediate care of CHIEF JUSTICE ROBINSON in the a shepherd or herdsman; that they are passage I have already quoted, and I left to roam wherever they may go. cannot think that a dog following its But where an animal escapes from the owner or other person having charge of control of the owner, and cannot be it can be said to be wandering about at caught by the owner, then such animal will or to be roaming or running at would be running at large within the large; its general course is governed meaning of the statute.' This instruc. by its master, although it does tion is correct; and we think the jur backward and forward while accom- was fully warranted in finding that the panying him, and it is controlled by his animal was running at large, notwithwill." And see McAneany v. Jeweit, 10 standing he had on the bridle and halter Allen (Mass.) 151 (vol. 1. supra, S91-2). strap. It does not appear that he was
(See AVIMALS). For other uses of the word see note i. within the personal or physical control Com. v. 14 Hogs, jo S. & R. (Pa.) 393. of anvone."
And see Nate z'. Leiter, 1 West. Rep. Whereas, in Coles 2”. Burns, 21 Hun (Ind.) 165; L. T. & S. W. R. Co. v. (N. Y.), the court said: "The phrase Forbes, 37 Kan. 445, 448. •running at large' implies permission Under an ordinance directing an oflior assent, or, at least, some fault on the cer to take up cattle "running at large part of the owner. When animals in the public streets,” he may pursue escape from their owner, after due pre- them to private property used as caution to secure them has been taken, open common (not belonging to the and without fault or negligence on his owner of the cattle) and there take them part, and he makes immediate and suit- up, or finding them “loose and at large" able efforts to recover them, they can- upon such open common, immediately not be said to be running at large. after having been on the public streets, Statutes must have a sensible construc- he may seize and impound them, “The tion, with reference to the evil to be moment they were, in fact, running at remedied by them. For example, ani- large in the city in any of the public mal may be running at large, although, places named there was a breach of the when seized, they were walking or lying ordinance, and the right of seizure and down. A horse that has thrown its impounding became perfect. To hold rider in the highway and escaped, a cow that such right, having once attached, turned out of a pasture at evening and entirely ceased or became suspended going home, droves of sheep, hogs or whenever such cattle temporarily other cattle being driven to market, passed from such public places and bethough for a moment unattended by the came trespassers upon private property, drover, can hardly be said to be running would tend to defeat the very object of at large, within the meaning of the the ordinance." O'Mally v. McGinn, statute. Nor, in our judgment, were 53 Wis. 353, 359. the plaintiff's horses running at large A city ordinance requiring the marwhen the trespass complained of was shal to “take up any cow or cattle runcommitted. The defendant's horses es- ning at large” includes also the idea of caped from his premises without his contining them, and anyone releasing knowledge, and, as far as it appears, them without authority is guilty of a without any fault or negligence on his violation of the ordinance. Jaquith v. part. Immediately after their escape Royee, 42 Iowa 406. he sent a servant in pursuit of them, i. Erecting a toll-board with the when they were found, within a very rates of toll in the small Roman characshort time, upon the defendant s prem- ters but of a large size, held a compliance ises. The escape was a mere accident. with a statute requiring them to be in Such a cannot reasonably be “larger or capital letters.” Nichols z'. brought within the statute cited."** Bertram, 3 Pich. (Mass.) 342.
So in Rutter 7'. llenry (O. Sup. A false and frauduient attirmation hy Ct.) 21. Wy. L. Bull. 129, it was held a vendor of lands that they had “large that where, without the fault of the deposits of oil in them, and were of owner, a horse passes from such owner's great value for the purpose of digging, enclosure over or through a line fence boring for and manufacturing oil," acinto the enclosure of an adjoining pro- companied with the statement that they prietor, and thence through a gap in had not been tested, were held matters the fence into the enclosure of another of opinion and not actionable. Holand adjacent proprietor, he is not “run- brook 7'. Connor, 60 Me. 578. ning at large" contrary to the provisions Where the plaintiff sold land repreof a statute. It was also held in this senting that it contained a "large and case that an allegation that such animal valuable" mineral deposit, held, that in was "unlawfully running at large, "with the absence of a showing that there was no further statement of the facts, was no mineral in the land, as represented, not a sufficient averment that he was a mere exaggeration as to the amount running at large in violation of the of the deposit would not constitute such provisions of the statute.
a fraud upon the purchaser as to avoid An act passed to prevent swine “run- a note given for the purchase money. ning at large” was held to apply only Dawson e'. Graham, 48 Iowa 378. where they were voluntarily suffered "By the “corporation at large' (as the to go at large, not where they escaped depository of certain powers) is meant from the owner without his default. the different ranks and orders which
LARGER-LARGEST. See note I.
LASCIVIOUS—(See LEWD; OPEN).--"Lascivious carriage and behavior" means all those wanton acts between persons of different sexes flowing from the exercise of lustful passions which are grossly indecent and unchaste, and which are not otherwise punished as crimes against chastity and public decency.?
LAST.--Coming after all others in order of succession. Closing; final; ultimate. For examples of its use see the notes.3
compose it, including the definite and of the crime requiring the assent or indefinite bodies. But our corporations concurrence of those who are present, in this State have no ranks, orders or nor to prevent the commission of it by integral parts corresponding strictly to one person only exhibiting his lascivious the constitution of the old English cor- carriage to another unconsenting perporations." Richards Town of son of a different sex. Indeed, the crimi. Clarksburg, 4 S. E. Rep. 781 (W. Va.). nality of the offence is enhanced by the
"Going off large," in nautical lan- opposition; for it must be considered as guage, is when the wind blows from one principal object of the law to protect some point abast the beam, or over the and strengthen such resistance by prequarter of the ship. The Indiana & venting the exhibition of impure moBuffalo, Newb. (U. S.) 121.
tives calculated to excite passions and “ 'Going off large' is having the wind thereby overpower the will." free on either tack, properly termed a 3. Last Place of Abode.-l'pon a writ vessel ‘off large,' because it is in her of error assigned that, at the time of the power to take a course to either side suing out and the service of the original - starboard larboard — proceed writ, the defendant had and still has a straight forward on her course, or re- “ last and usual place of abode "in this turn back to her anchorage, or to the State, and that no sufficient service of point from which she started. In other the writ was ever made upon him, nor language, she is free to the wind.” The had he ever appeared in the action, it Pacific and the Brig Fashion, i Newb. appeared that the sheriff made return (U. S.) 26–7.
to the writ as follows: "And the within Repairable by "inhabitants at large" named defendant not having any resiis used in contradistinction to “repair- dence, last and usual place of abode, or able by individuals ratione tenurae” in agent or attorney within iny precinct, I a statute regulating the affairs of high- have been unable to summon him." An ways. Gibson v. Mayor of Preston, L. order was then passed in the usual form R., 5 Q. B 218.
to notify defendants out of the com1. “The larger portion of twelve monwealth, which was duly published months," as the statutory period of in order to notify the said defendant residence of a taxpayer, held to mean thus described as resident in Philadel. more than half of them in duration of phia. Judgment was entered by default, time. Ailman v'. Griswold, 12 R. I. 339. and the writ of error was taken to
A covenant to sell a vessel “forthwith reverse the judgment. The court held as soon as may be" for the largest sum that where the service of a writ on an that we can reasonably obtain" was absent defendant, who has a " last and held to allow a reasonable latitude as to usual place of abode " within the comthe time and manner of making the monwealth, is not made by leaving a sale; and if the vessel was lost, that put summons or copy, as required by the an end to the power and to the obligation Rev. Stat., ch. 90, § 45, at such to sell.
Adams 1. Foster, 5 Cush. place of abode, the defendant may take (Mass.) 156.
advantage of the defect of service, either 2. Fowler v. State, 5 Day (Conn.) 84. by plea in abatement, or by writ of er. “It is, however, contended that this DEWEY, J., saying: “This precrime cannot be committed unless by sents the case in reference to Howard the assent and concurrence of two, at Tilden (the defendant) as though no least. This offence may undoubtedly appearance had been entered in his bebe committed by or in the presence of half, and opens the enquiry whether a an assemblage of persons of different legal service was made upon him. The sexes; but there is nothing in the nature service is said to be defective in not conforming to the provisions of the Rev. this commonwealth, owned real estate Stat., ch. 90, 99 45 and 46. By the here, and continued to live here until former of these sections it is provided 1841, when he removed to Philadelphia. that if the defendant is out of the This brings the case within the proviState at the time of the service of the sions of the statute, giving to the words summons, the service thereof shall be “the last and usual place of abode, 'it made by leaving it, if it is a separate any within the State, the meaning that summons, at his last and usual place of has been commonly attached to them, abode, if there be any within the State.” as used in this and former statutes By section 46, “ If the absent defendant, directing the mode of serving writs. whose goods or estate are attached, is This objection to the service may be sued with one or more others on a joint assigned as a cause of error, and for contract, and if he has no such tenant, this judgment may be reversed. If agent or attorney, within the State, the this is not a sufficient ground for a recopy of the summons for him shall be versal, there is also the other objection left with one of the codefendants, if arising upon section 46, requiring a copy there be any within the State. But the of the summons to be left with the code. return of the officer, who served the fendant or Howard Tilden, the absent writ, is supposed by the defendant in defendant; the omission of which would error to be conclusive on the point, it seem to be a good cause for sustaining being stated in such return by the officer this writ of error.” Tilden' et al. v. as follows: “The within named Howard Johnson, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 354. Tilden not having any residence, last In bastardy proceedings the question and usual place of abode, or agent, or as to the meaning of this phrase has attorney within my precinct, I have arisen in the construction of the statute been unable to summon him.' What 7 and 8 V'ict., ch. 101, 3, which is as is the legal effect of this return? As follows: “On proof that the summons between parties and juries, the return of was duly served on such person at his an officer is to be taken to be true, and last place of abode.” Thus, where the is only to be controverted in an action defendant showed by affidavit that the against the officer for a false return. summons was not served at his last This is so as to all matters which are place of abode, the court granted a cerproperly the subject of a return by the tiorari to bring the order up to quash it otlicer. We are then brought to the as being made without jurisdiction. enquiry, how far this fact of the party's COLERIDGE, J., saying: “The rule was having his last and usual place of abode moved for on an affidavit, negativing in the State is one to be passed upon personal service of the summons, and by the officer and made the subject of stating that it was served at a house his return? In our view, this return where the defendant formerly lodged, can only properly be understood as a but did not lodge at the time of the return that no such last and usual place service, and that it never reached him of abode of the party, within the State, until after the day on which the order was known to the officer. To this ex- was made. The answer is, only that it tent he may properly certify the fact in was served at a house at which the dehis return. Beyond this, we think his ponent believed the defendant to reside, return is not conclusive; and it is open inasmuch as he was told so by the misto the party to show, under proper tress of the house, who said his clothes pleading and proofs, that he was such were still there, but that he had not resident, having a last and usual place been there the day previous. Conof abode here, and thus abate the writ sidering that the defendant's affidavit for want of proper service. This de- might have been answered if untrue. I fect may be taken advantage of, either must take the fact to be as he states it. by plea in abatement, or by a writ of Now, by Stat. 7 and 8 Vict., ch. 101, 93, error, assigning for the error the fact jurisdiction attaches only under such that the party had a last and usual circumstances as the present, 'on proof place of abode within the State, at the that the summons was left at the last time of the service, and that no sum- place of abode;' by the word 'last' is mons or copy was kept as required, by meant the then present place of abode, Rev. Stat., ch. 90, 45. The case is, if the party have any, the last which therefore, properly before us, and the he had, if he has ceased to have any. next enquiry is as to the fact, in refer. The service, therefore, I think, was not ence to the last and usual place of abode at the right place." The Queen v. of Howard Tilden. He was born in Evans, 19 L. J., M. C. 151.