In honor of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Month, we examine two cases in the New Haven County, County Court involving animals, as well as the laws regarding animals in Connecticut during the colonial and early American periods.
When quoting from documents, we will use the actual spelling, including transcriptions of individual words as necessary. (For more information about colonial spelling practices, see The Standardization of American English at teachinghistory.org.) In certain circumstances, we will add missing letters to abbreviated words or substitute modern spelling in brackets to enhance reader comprehension.
An illustration from The Black Prince of John Naimbanna berating a man in England for beating his horse, J. Evans, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
In colonial and early American Connecticut, people viewed animals as livestock, food, and property to be utilized and exploited, or nuisances to be contained and destroyed.
Connecticut’s early legislation demonstrates this perspective through its arrangement of the laws listed in The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, Book 1, which was published by the authority of the Connecticut General Assembly in 1808. In the index of this lawbook, animal is not listed as a subject term, and the laws and regulations pertaining to animals are spread across many categories.
In terms of agriculture and livestock, there were specific laws concerning cattle, goats, and sheep, with swine included under the legislation concerning cattle and sheep. Sheep, swine, and cows were also mentioned as property that may or may not be exempt from seizure during the levying and serving of an execution (meaning the record of when and how a writ was completed, not to be confused with capital punishment). In addition, there were laws regarding the regulation and maintenance of animal pounds, as well as the management and disposition of stray beasts and other lost goods.
Laws concerning provisions regulated animal foodstuffs including beef, butter, fish, lard, pork, and shad. Laws regarding fisheries regulated clams, oysters, cod-fishery, and whale-fishery. Other animal products such as beaver fur, deer skins, and feathers were mentioned in laws regarding peddlers. Under this legislation, people were forbidden to sell feathers (or indigo), but they were still allowed to sell beaver fur and deer skins. Regarding leather, the law was concerned with the proper licensing and marking rights of tanners.
Wolves were considered such dangerous nuisances that Connecticut enacted a law encouraging their destruction in May 1784. Even dogs employed for protection of livestock and other property could cause trouble, and the first act for preventing mischief by dogs was passed in May 1765. There was also a provision in the Connecticut statutes regarding sickness that called for people to kill their or others’ dogs in order to prevent the spread of disease during epidemics.
In terms of human behavior toward animals, legislation focused on preventing and punishing human “sin” rather than enforcing humane treatment of animals. Felonies involving animals included bestiality, which was punishable by death for both the human and the animal. Judge Jon C. Blue profiled one such notorious case where a man named George Spencer was alleged to have fathered a sow’s dead piglet—which people reviled as a “prodigious monster” due to its deformities—simply because he had a disability in one eye that possessed a stunningly coincidental physical resemblance to the piglet’s eye. Spencer was ultimately hanged and the sow who bore the piglet was “slain in his sight” (The Case of the Piglet’s Paternity: Trials from the New Haven Colony, 1639-1663, pp. 33-39).
Connecticut also deemed horse-stealing a felony, for which the penalty was imprisonment in New-Gate Prison. The State likewise banned horse-racing in October 1803. Given that the law states that the proceeds of any bet, wager, purse, or stakes made on such a race “shall thereby be forfeited to this state,” it seems that this legislation was enacted not out of concern for cruelty, but to stamp out gambling.
Indeed, we were not able to discover any laws specifically concerning animal cruelty in the The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, Book 1. In the lawbook’s index, the subject term cruelty only pertains to legislation regarding Delinquents and Masters and Servants.
However, the 1727 case of Captain William Dudley vs. Nathan Palmer specifically references “ye Law of ye Colony Entitulled An Act for preventing Cruelty to ye [brute] Creatures.” This is confirmed on page 523 of The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut Prior to the Union With New Haven Colony, May, 1665, under a section titled CRUELTY that states, “It is ordered by this Courte and Authority thereof, that no man shall exercise any tiranny or cruelty towards any brute creatures wh[ic]h are [u]sually kept for the [u]se of man.”
So, animal cruelty legislation does seem to have existed during the early colonial period, though for reasons unknown it does not appear to have been documented in the 1808 book of Connecticut statutes.
Writ and verdict for Jess Austin vs. Jonathan Lewis
In April 1774, Jess Austin of Durham sued Jonathan Lewis of Nine Partners, New York regarding a black roan horse that he bought from Lewis for 13 pounds. At the time of the sale, Lewis affirmed that this horse was “sound & well & free from any Distemper or disorder whatsoever.” However, Austin found the horse to be “unsound & unwell & infected with a Distemper called the pole Evil” and therefore “wholly unfit for Service & of no Value.”
The Poll Evil is a condition caused by injury or bacterial infection that affects a horse’s poll, which is the area at the top of the head between the ears. Due to the inflammation and intense pain this condition causes, a horse will resist being haltered, bridled, or even touched in this area (Poll Evil, Equimed). Before antibiotics and other modern medicines, this ailment was difficult to treat. The experts of the time recommended various remedies involving vinegar, wine, elder flower, and turpentine (J. Bartlet, The Gentleman's Farriery: Or, a Practical Treatise on the Diseases of Horses, pp. 256-261). It is still considered a serious equine disease today, as the infection can progress to the main ligament in the neck and become life-threatening if left untreated (Poll Evil in Horses, Wag Labs, Inc.).
For his loss, Austin requested 20 pounds in damages. Lewis pleaded not guilty, but the jury found him “guilty in manner and form.” However, the Court only awarded Austin 3 pounds and 18 shillings, plus the recovery of his court costs. Lewis appealed this verdict to the Superior Court, and Mr. Pierpoint Edwards of New Haven was bound on recognizance on his behalf “if he make not his plea good” (County Court Records, New Haven County, Vol. 8, 1774-1783, p. 30).
Given that the colonists were dependent on animals for food, labor, and travel, it was not uncommon for people to file lawsuits seeking recompense for animals that turned out to be ailing after purchase. In 1760, Benjamin Cook Jr. of Wallingford claimed that Peleg Spencer, also of Wallingford, sold him a mare that was “Infirm, Ailing, and Unsound, by Some Disorder in her Hips or hind parts.” In 1769, Jehiel Baldwin of Enfield sued Nathan Sanford of New Haven, alleging that a bay horse Sanford sold him for 15 pounds was not “sound & well” as affirmed and warranted, but “infected with a certain fatal Disease called the Bots, of which the Pl[ain]t[iff] was intirely ignorant.”
Those who have read previous entries in this blog will observe that the “sound & well” language these plaintiffs used to describe their ailing animals is chillingly parallel to the language used by plaintiffs to describe men, women, and children in legal disputes involving illness of enslaved persons, which further highlights the sheer brutality and dehumanization of chattel slavery.
Writ and court proceedings for Susanna Hotchkiss vs. Samuel Starr Fairchild
Lawsuits for violence done to beasts were also common, though they tended to be prosecuted as trespasses against property rather than as animal cruelty incidents. In January 1785, Susanna Hotchkiss of New Haven sued Samuel Starr Fairchild, also of New Haven, for trespass. Specifically, Hotchkiss alleged that Fairchild “with Force and Arms made and Assault in and upon the Body of a certain Brown Horse belonging to the Pl[ain]t[iff]” and “with a certain Fire Arm or Gun loaded with Powder & Ball entered into the Pl[ain]t[iff’]s homelot in s[ai]d New Haven where the Pl[ain]t[iff] now resides and fired said Ball into said Horse whereby said Horse was grievously Wounded.”
Hotchkiss requested 20 pounds in damages. Fairfield requested the charges be dismissed on the grounds that it was not possible to commit assault and battery against a horse, stating that “Action of Assault & Battery doth not lie for a Horse & especially after the Horse is dead & consequently it must have been an Action for Murder.” However, upon the review of the evidence, the Court was “of Opinion the Def[endan]t is Guilty” (County Court Records, New Haven County, Vol. 9, 1783-1788, p. 171).
Perhaps the Court did not appreciate Fairfied’s impudent wit, for they awarded Hotchkiss a sizeable 12 pounds in damages, plus the recovery of her court costs.
As noted in a previous post, the records for these cases, as well as several of the cases previously profiled in this blog, are currently in the process of being digitized. They will eventually be available for public viewing at the Connecticut Digital Archive (CTDA).
The Connecticut State Library would like to thank the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) for their generous support of this project.
Connecticut State Library | 231 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106 | 860-757-6500 * Toll-free 866-886-4478
Disclaimers & Permissions | Privacy Policy | State of Connecticut Home Page
The State of Connecticut is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and strongly encourages the applications of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities.
0 Comments.