Definition
A common law and statutory criminal offense consisting of the willful and malicious killing or maiming of an animal belonging to another person. The offense is rooted in older English criminal law and was adopted and elaborated by American jurisdictions through both common law development and specific animal protection or malicious mischief statutes. The act punished is not accidental injury or killing but a deliberate, spiteful, or wanton destruction of another's livestock or other domesticated beast, treating such animals as property subject to criminal protection against malicious interference.
The full phrase — "maliciously killing the beast of another" — is a term of art drawn from early criminal pleading and indictment practice, where precise charging language was essential to state a cognizable offense. Each operative word carried legal weight: "maliciously" distinguished deliberate wrongdoing from negligence or accident; "killing" defined the act; "beast of another" identified both the subject matter (an animal) and the ownership element (the animal must belong to someone other than the defendant).
---
Common Confusion
This offense is frequently conflated with malicious mischief, which is the broader statutory category under which animal-killing offenses were often prosecuted. Malicious mischief covers willful destruction of property generally; maliciously killing the beast of another is a specific application of that principle to living animals owned as property. In historical sources, the two may be used interchangeably, but criminal pleadings required the specific form. Researchers should also note that early authorities sometimes treated animals separately from inanimate property, creating distinct charging requirements and evidentiary issues around the proof of malice.
---
Core Elements
Because this is a criminal offense whose elements were contested in the case law Rapalje & Lawrence cites, the structural breakdown is useful:
1. MALICE — The act must have been done willfully and with malice, meaning not through accident, negligence, or justification. Malice here does not require proof of personal ill will toward the owner; a wanton or reckless disregard for the owner's property rights was often sufficient under early American case law.
2. KILLING — Death of the animal was required for this specific charge. Maiming or wounding might support a related but distinct offense. Statutes in many jurisdictions later merged these.
3. BEAST — Typically referred to domesticated animals of value: cattle, horses, mules, sheep. Wild animals generally fell outside the scope of this offense. Whether dogs or other companion animals qualified varied by jurisdiction and period.
4. OF ANOTHER — The animal must have belonged to someone other than the defendant. Ownership by the prosecuting party or a third party was an essential element, and ownership was a question of fact for the jury. The cited Alabama, Minnesota, and Tennessee authorities address precisely what constitutes sufficient proof of this ownership element.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is significant primarily as a term of criminal pleading, not as a general descriptive phrase. Researchers encountering it in historical indictments, criminal form books, or appellate opinions must recognize that the phrasing is technical charging language, and that appellate litigation often turned on whether the indictment correctly alleged each element.
The three case citations given by Rapalje & Lawrence — 7 Ala. 728, 1 Minn. 292, and 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 278 — specifically address what constitutes "of another," meaning proof of ownership was the contested element in the leading cases. Researchers examining historical criminal prosecutions involving livestock or animal destruction should check both the malicious mischief statutes of the relevant jurisdiction and the indictment form requirements, as failure to allege ownership correctly could defeat a conviction on technical grounds.
By the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this specific common law framing gave way almost entirely to statutory malicious mischief and later to animal cruelty statutes. Those modern statutes broaden the scope significantly — covering animals beyond domesticated "beasts," including acts short of killing, and often incorporating animal welfare considerations rather than pure property protection. A researcher working across time periods must not assume conceptual continuity between the historical offense and modern animal cruelty law.
The juxtaposition in Rapalje & Lawrence — placing this entry alongside "maliciously refusing a vote" — reflects the dictionary's alphabetical structure but also illustrates how nineteenth-century criminal law encyclopedists catalogued a wide range of "maliciously" offenses as a loose conceptual grouping, unified by the malice element rather than by subject matter.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence is the sole source dictionary for this entry. Their treatment is characteristically spare: the entry provides no discursive definition, instead functioning as a case-finder directing the reader to three American authorities on what constitutes proof of the "of another" element. This approach reflects the reference style of the era — assuming the reader knows the general contours of the offense and needs only the leading cases on disputed points.
What Rapalje & Lawrence does not provide is any discussion of the malice element, the definition of "beast," or the relationship between this common law offense and the malicious mischief statutes already proliferating in American jurisdictions by 1883. Researchers relying solely on this dictionary will have an incomplete picture of the offense's legal structure. Earlier English authorities — including Blackstone's Commentaries and East's Pleas of the Crown — address the underlying common law framework more fully.
---
Jurisdictional Note
American jurisdictions varied considerably in whether they retained this offense as a distinct common law charge or subsumed it under malicious mischief statutes. The Tennessee, Alabama, and Minnesota authorities cited by Rapalje & Lawrence suggest early adoption across diverse American jurisdictions, but statutory codification proceeded at different rates. Researchers should consult the criminal code of the relevant jurisdiction and period rather than assuming uniform treatment.
---