“Last night in the libery of my old friend Judge Fowler in town, I looked up some things about this dog question.  I find that there have been some queer decisions handed down by the courts, showin’ that the law does recognize the fact that a dog is different from other four-footed critters.  For instance, it has been held that a dog has a right to protect not only his life but his dignity; that where a man worries a dog beyond what would be reasonable to expect any self respectin’ critter to stand, that dog has a right to bite that man, an’ that man can’t collect any damages—­provided the bitin’ is done at the time of the worryin’ an’ in sudden heat an’ passion.  That has been held in the courts, gentlemen.  The law that holds for man holds for dogs.

“Another thing:  If the engineer of a railroad train sees a cow or a horse or a sheep on the track, or a hog, he must stop the train or the road is liable for any damage done ’em.  But if he sees a man walkin’ along the track he has a right to presume that the man, bein’ a critter of more or less intelligence, will git off, an’ he is not called on to stop under ordinary circumstances.  The same thing holds true of a dog.  The engineer has a right to presume that the dog, bein’ a critter of intelligence, will get off the track.  Here again the law is the same for dog an’ man.

“But—­if the engineer has reason to believe that the man’s mind is took up with some object of an engrossin’ nater, he is supposed to stop the train till the man comes to himself an’ looks around.  The same thing holds true of a dog.  If the engineer has reason to suspect that the dog’s mind is occupied with some engrossin’ topic, he must stop the train.  That case has been tested in this very state, where a dog was on the track settin’ a covey of birds in the adjoinin’ field.  The railroad was held responsible for the death of that dog, because the engineer ought to have known by the action of the dog that his mind was on somethin’ else beside railroad trains an’ locomotives.”

Again the magistrate spat into the cuspidor between his feet.  Davy, still watching him, felt his mother’s grip on his arm.  Everyone was listening so closely that the whispered sneering comment of Old Man Thornycroft to the man next to him was audible, “What’s all this got to do with the case?”

“The p’int I’m gettin’ to is this,” went on Mr. Kirby, not paying attention to him:  “a dog is not like a cow or a horse or any four-footed critter.  He’s a individual, an’ so the courts have held in spirit if not in actual words.  Now this court of mine here in Tom Belcher’s sto, ain’t like other courts.  I have to do the decidin’ myself; I have to interpret the true spirit of the law, without technicalities an’ quibbles such as becloud it in other an’ higher courts.  An’ I hold that since a dog is de facto an’ de jure an individual, he has a right to life, liberty an’ the pursuit of happiness.