State

The Supre e Court and Dogs ll mis h;ick in I SHI I dial I ho court w as cal loil upon to decide whether I lie “evi¬ dence** of bloodhounds was sufficient to convict a iiian of crime. They doc*ided it was not. F.ORTY-EIGHT years ago Ihe (North Carolina Supreme Court was called upon to decide its first dog case, and the dog lost. The question the Justices were asked to pass on was whether a man could be convicted of theft on the uncorroborated testimony of a hound dog. The State's highest tribunal, through Justice Cook. said no. and a new trial was ordered for two Pitt County Negroes charged with robbing a store. It all happened back in February. 1901. when thieves entered a country store in Pitt County and left a basket. After the robbery had been discovered the next day. bloodhounds from Kinston sniffed the basket and the window-sill and then started on the trail. They went up to Amos Moore and bayed him. then to Ashley Dix¬ on. and bayed him too. whereu|>on the two men. with two other Ne¬ groes. were arrested. Claim Evidence Incompetent At the trial in Superior Court at Greenville the way the dogs acted in regard to Moore and Dixon was gone into at great length over vig¬ orous protests of defense counsel, who contended the evidence in¬ competent as the tracks which the dogs trailed had never been identi¬ fied as those of the defendants, or proven that they were made by them at the time of the alleged larceny. The Supreme Court sus¬ tained this objection and ordered a new trial. The High Court held that the trailing of the suspected men's tracks and the baying at them by the bloodhounds, unless the tracks were otherwise identified, or the men connected by other evidence with the theft, was insufficient to convict. The opinion went on to say that in this case there was no evidence to connect the circumstance of the baying at the men by the dogs with the making of tracks at the time the larceny was committed. Nor was there any evidence that the By EARL ПЕЛА Kinston dogs scented any tracks made by the defendants. Later on. one of the four men who had been arrested in connec¬ tion with the theft turned state's evidence and implicated the others. They were sentenced to serve a term in jail. 'I he ease aroused considerable interest at the time. The general theory held by many people was that when a bloodhound tracked a man and finally caught up with him. it was sufficient evidence to convict the fugitive as the indi¬ vidual who had committed the crime. There were many who were greatly surprised when the decision of the highest judicial tri¬ bunal in North Carolina became known. The masterly 450-word opinion, written by Judge Cook, in the course of which he discoursed quite learnedly on the subject of dogs in general, follows: The Opinion "It is a matter of common knowl¬ edge that there are many breeds of dog endowed with special traits and gifts peculiar to their respec¬ tive kind — the pointer and setter take instinctively to hunting birds: the hound to foxes, deer and rab¬ bits. but we know of no breed which instinctively hunts man¬ kind. Yet we do know that dogs are capable of running the tracks of human beings, as is frequently evi¬ denced by the lost dog trailing his master's track long distances, and through crowded streets, and final¬ ly overtaking him. which demon¬ strates the further fact that some distinctive peculiarity exists be¬ tween different persons which can be recognized and known by a dog. And it is a well-known fact that the bloodhound can be trained to run the tracks of strangers; and in this the 'training' consists only in being taught to pursue the human track; the gifts or powers or in¬ stincts being already inherent in the animal, he is induced to exer¬ cise them under the persuasive in¬ fluence and protection of his trainer or master. Once trained in this pursuit, we must assume that his accuracy depends, not upon his training, but upon the degree of capacity bestowed upon him by nature. Experience and common observation show that among dogs of the full blood and full brothers and sisters, one or more may be highly proficient, while others will be inefficient, unreliable and some¬ times worthless; some may be acute to scent, while others will be dull to scent and incapable of run¬ ning a 'cold' track. Then again we may find the most reliable and fa¬ vorite hound taking the ‘fresher’ track which crosses his trail, or quitting the cold trail of a fox and following the hot trail of a deer which he may strike. Likewise the pointer or setter may abandon a 'cold' trail of a covey of birds and follow a 'warmer' one upon which he may happen to run. or a squirrel dog may leave the tree at which he has taken his stand and barked, and go to another, or quit entirely. So it does no violence to common ex- Erience to assume that dogs are ble to be deficient in their in¬ stincts. Therefore we frequently hear hunters speak of some dogs as ‘true' and ‘staunch' while others will be denounced as ’unreliable' or ‘liars.’ It sometimes happens that the best-trained fox hounds will lead their master into a rabbit chase, or a pointer will hold his master with trembling excitement while he ‘points' a terrapin." Judging from all this, it is read¬ ily apparent that Justice Cook either knew a lot about dogs per¬ sonally or had made a thorough study on the subject. Boy: "Bui officer, you can't arrest me. I came from one of the best fami¬ lies in North Carolina." Cop: "That's all right. buddy. I'm arresting you for speeding, not for breeding purposes." THE STATE. January 29. 1949