Law protection of cats in the United States

Continue from Cats and the law .

There are further laws: The Dimetian Code says: Whoever shall sell a cat is to answer for her not going a caterwauling every moon; and that she devour not her kittens; and that she have ears, eyes, teeth, and nails, and is a good mouser. The Gwentian Code provides that there shall be no Manx cats: The qualities of a cat are that it be perfect of ear, perfect of eye, perfect of teeth, perfect of tail, perfect of claw, and without marks of fire; and that it kill mice well and that it shall not devour its kittens and that it be not caterwauling on every new moon.

The importance of the cat to the community was recognized by these Welsh laws which provided that one cat was necessary to make a lawful hamlet together with nine buildings, one plough, one kiln, one churn, one bull, one cock, and one herdsman. The dog and the horse are not mentioned.

Another interesting detail of the Dimetian Code relates to the separation of man and wife: the goods and chattels were to be divided but the husband took the cat if there was but one; if there were others they went to the wife. The stress laid on puss at this period, her comparatively high value, leads Pennant 6 to the very credible conclusion that her importation must have been recent, as the animal breeds so rapidly that in a few years a dozen felines could populate a country.

Notwithstanding the laws of Howel the question as to whether or not the cat is a property continues to be discussed in its legal aspects down to the present day. There seems to be difference of opinion in the matter and the judgments in law suits of this character seem to depend on whether or no the judge is a cat-lover. Fortunately most judges are catlovers.

Monsieur Richard, a juge de paix of Fontainebleau rendered a memorable decision. An inhabitant of the town, annoyed by cats who molested his garden, set traps and caught fifteen. The owners of the cats 7 brought the man to trial.

“Considering,” said the learned judge in his opinion, “that the law does not permit the individual to do justice to himself in his own person;

“That article 479 of the Penal Code, and Article 1385 of the Code Napoleon, recognize several kinds of cats, notably the wild cat, as a noxious animal for the destruction of which a reward is granted, but that the domestic cat is not affected by these articles in the eyes of the legislator;

“That the domestic cat, not being a thing of nought (res nullius), but the property of a master, ought to be protected by the law;

“That the utility of the cat as a destroyer of mischievous animals of the rodent kind being indisputable, equity demands the extension of indulgence to an animal which is tolerated by the law;

“That even the domestic cat is in some degree of a mixed nature, that is to say, an animal always partly wild, and which must remain so by reason of its destiny and purpose, if it is to render those services which are expected from it;

“That although the law of 1790, art. 12 in fine, permits the killing of poultry, the assimilation of cats with these birds is by no 4means correct, since the fowl species are destined to be killed sooner or later, and that they can be kept in a manner under the hand of their owners, sub custodia, in a completely enclosed and secure place, while this cannot be said of the cat, for it is impossible to put that animal under lock and key, if it is to obey the law of its nature;

“That the asserted right in certain cases of killing the dog, which is a dangerous animal and prompt to attack without being rabid, cannot be held to imply as a consequence the right to kill a cat, which is an animal not calculated to inspire fear, and always ready to run away;

“That nothing in the law authorizes citizens to set traps, in order, by an appetizing bait, to entice the innocent cats of an entire quarter as well as the guilty ones;

“That no one ought to do to the property (chose) of another that which he would not wish to have done to his own property;

“That all goods being either movables (meubles) or immovables (immeubles) according to article 516 of the Code Napoleon, it results therefrom that the cat, contrary to article 128 of the same Code, is incontestably a movable (meuble) protected by the law, and therefore that the owners of animals which are destroyed are entitled to claim the application of article 479, clause 1, of the Penal Code, which punishes those who have voluntarily caused damage to the movable property of others.”

Continue in Cats and laws