The Small Claims Court is usually a forum in which parties try to settle disputes involving $7,000 or less, but on Wednesday one of its most intriguing cases was one involving a dispute over a dog rather than over money.

The case, Willard Cheng v. Todd Lemon, was the latest development in a story I wrote about a year ago when Mr. Cheng was arrested in Auburn and charged with receiving stolen property and larceny of property worth over $250.

Mr. Cheng had his dog with him at the time, a female border collie he called Abby. The dog was initially placed in the custody of the town’s animal control officer, but was later given up for adoption to Mr. Lemon, a sergeant on the town’s police force.

Mr. Cheng contended that to support Sgt. Lemon’s designs on his dog (he said the sergeant had inquired about buying Abby and that he had turned him down) the town unfairly expedited the adoption process while he was awaiting bail in the Worcester County Jail.

The town has insisted that Mr. Cheng, who was arrested Jan. 14, 2015, and secured bail on Feb. 3, did not respond in time to a Jan. 21 letter sent to the jail notifying him that he would lose ownership of Abby if he did not make contact by Jan. 28.

Nevertheless, town records obtained by the Telegram & Gazette indicate Sgt. Lemon signed a foster care agreement to take possession of the dog on Jan. 26. According to the agreement, Sgt. Lemon, if requested, was mandated to return Abby to the town “at any time and for any reason.”

As such, when Mr. Cheng on Feb. 4 tried to reclaim Abby, promising to pay the cost incurred by Sgt. Lemon in caring for the dog and to buy the officer and his family a replacement dog, the town could have easily returned it to its rightful owner.

The town, however, left the decision up to Sgt. Lemon, who rejected Mr. Cheng’s offer.

On Wednesday, Mr. Cheng arrived in court carrying a folder containing several oversize photos of him and Abby in happier days. On the small claims form requiring the dollar amount in dispute, he had inserted reclaiming ownership of Abby as his intention.

Small Claims Court, affectionately known as the people’s court, is touted as an “informal and inexpensive” forum designed to help settle disputes without the aid of a lawyer. It is not necessarily an attorney-free zone, however.

This is particularly true for the court’s biggest business - debt collection. In these cases, the lawyerless individual is usually going up against lawyers representing the banks or other financial entities trying to recoup the debt.

Unfortunately for Mr. Cheng, he too had to argue his case against a lawyer, Auburn Town Counsel Robert Hennigan Jr.

Before he could open his folder with the photos of Abby and all the town documents he had diligently assembled, Mr. Hennigan provided Mr. Cheng and presiding Clerk Magistrate Michael Prosser copies of a prepared motion asking the court to dismiss the case because of “lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Essentially, Mr. Hennigan argued that Mr. Cheng was suing Sgt. Lemon in his “capacity as an employee” of Auburn.

According to state law, he said, “Only public employers can be held liable for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any public employee while acting within the scope of his office or employment.”

Mr. Hennigan also noted that “only the Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear a claim brought against a public employer.”

The clerk magistrate asked Mr. Cheng for a counter-argument. He gave it an admirable try. Notwithstanding his belief that the town had aided and abetted the transfer of Abby’s ownership, it was “private citizen" Todd Lemon he was suing, he said. He showed the court an adoption document and noted that Sgt. Lemon did not sign it as a police officer, but as a private individual.

It was to no avail. The clerk magistrate ruled against him.

Authors and legal scholars Thomas Merrill and Henry Smith, writing on “The Morality of Property” for the William and Mary Law Review, noted that “no system of property rights can survive unless property ownership is infused with moral significance,” meaning that “the right of the owner to act as the exclusive gatekeeper of the owned thing must be regarded as a moral right; intentional violations of this right, either by unlicensed invasions of owned things or unconsented takings of owned things, must be regarded as immoral acts.”

This “moral right” has been the driving force throughout Mr. Cheng's odyssey to reclaim Abby. It still is. He left the court Wednesday dejected, but vowing to continue the fight for Abby, his best friend.