Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 03.pdf/384

 Cats. According to the Dimetian code, "who ever 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 version says: "The teithi [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." Manx cats are ruled out here. At what stage of the moon's waxing do American cats chiefly cater waul? The vendors of every cat in our neighborhood would be liable for breach of the implied warranty as to non-caterwaul ing were the laws of Howel the Good now in force. Under the Gwentian code the damages for breach of warranty and the legal worth of the cat were co-equal. One cat was necessary to make a lawful hamlet, together with nine buildings, one plough, one kiln, one churn, and one bull, and one cock, and one herdman (Welsh Laws, book xiv. chap, xxxiii.). The tail, eyes, and life of a cat were consid ered of equal value (Gwentian code, book ii. chap, xxxix.). The milk of a cat was deemed worthless, and no satisfaction had to be made on account of it ( Dimetian Code, book ii. chap. viii.). If a cat was caught mousing in a flax-garden, the owner had to pay all dam ages. When a husband and wife separated, the goods and chattels were carefully di vided, and the husband took the cat, if there was but one; if there were others, the wife had them ( Dimetian Code, book ii. chap, xxv. and xviii.). Cats are not so much thought of in these days of mouse-traps, and in this land where we have no king's barns and therefore no custos horrei regii. In fact, it has been de cided to be libellous in Georgia to say that a young lady said that her mamma acted like a cat, purring and mewing, and assuming the attitude of a cat in the effort

35 1

to catch rats, and such-like things (Stewart v. Swift Specific Co., 76 Ga. 280). A dozen years or more agone a cat figured in the sheriff's court at Perth, Scotland; the cat had killed the plaintiff's carrier-pigeon on a neighbor's premises. The learned sheriff in his judg ment said : " It was quite legitimate for the pursuer (*. e. the plaintiff, not the cat) to keep a pigeon, but just as much so for the defender to keep a cat. The latter is more a domestic animal than the pursuer's bird. But there are no obligations on the owner of a cat to restrain it to the house. The pursuer's plea is that the natural instinct of the feline race is to prey upon birds as well as mice. So it was argued that the owner of the cat should prevent the possibility of its coming into contact with its favorite sport. But it is equally true that the owner of a bird should exercise similar precaution to prevent it coming within the range of a hostile race. If the defender's cat had tres passed into the pursuer's house or aviary where the bird was secured, there might be ground for finding the owner of the cat liable for the consequences of its being at large. With parity of reason, had the bird intruded itself upon the territory of the cat and there been slain, there could have been no recourse, because the owner of the bird should have prevented its escape. In the present case it appears that both the quadruped and the winged animal were in trespass, both were on neutral territory, being the green of a neighboring proprietor. It was the duty of the pursuer to take the guardianship of the bird said to be so valuable, and therefore both owners are in equal blame, and the case must be viewed as arising from natural law, for which neither owner without culpa can be answerable. The defender having at first not sympathized with the loss of the pursuer, but rather put him at defiance, and forced him to prove that it was the defender's cat who slew his bird, the defender will be nssoilzied (acquitted), but without costs (Webb v. McFeat, 22 Journ. of Jur. 669). Another Scotch judge has recently decided '