Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

"Admirable!" exclaimed Mr. Dauncey to the jury. "Gentlemen, you have heard, as well as I, that foreign foxes are imported into this country at a very great expence, and so, I suppose, after they are let loose in our woods, these things are set to destroy them, and get quit of them again."

spears, was then examined; he positively swore, that he did not know what use they were made for; that he did not think Sir William Clayton knew any thing about them; that Joseph Webb, a farmer, under Sir W. Clayton, and also one of his game-keepers, paid him for making them. It appeared, however, that this man was but a journeyman blacksmith; that he manufactured Sir William's iron at so much a day, and that he had carried a large quantity of these spears, made out of strike-iron, to House, the game-keeper, who lives in the Moor-longing to different gentlemen upon visits at wood.

House being sworn, declared that he was not hired to look after the game, but to take care of the wood; that he knew nothing about dog-spears; that sometimes he had seen such an instrument as was shown to him in court, sticking in a tree, but could not tell || what it was for, or who placed it there. Being examined as to the place where the dead dog was found, he said he did not know how it was killed, nor the distance from the boundary, whether it was fifty yards, one hundred, or one hundred and fifty yards, but afterwards contradicting himself, he said it was sixty-five yards, for he had measur

ed it.

Woodrow, another game-keeper, was sworn; he likewise did not know what was meant by a dog-spike, and was sure his master, Sir William Clayton, had never ordered any such things to be set in the wood. Being shewn one, and asked if he had never seen such a thing before, answered, yes, he thought he had.-Where? In the wood.-What did he think it was put there for? To destroy foxes.

The prevarication of these three last witnesses excited the indignation of the Bench. It appeared clearly, that Sir W. C. knew of the dog-spears being set in his woods; and Mr. Townsend proved that four dogs, be-.

his house, had within these few years been killed by them. The defendant called no witnesses.

Mr. Justice Dallas reprehended severely, in his charge to the jury, a practice so imminently dangerous and unfeeling, particularly as it appeared that women and children frequently passed that way. He said he had little doubt as to the illegality of the act in his own mind; but, as it was a new case, as well as a very important one, and as he was a very young judge, he did not wish to lay down the law upon it without the concurrence of the other judges, subject to whose decision a verdict was given to the plaintiff for fifteen pounds, the supposed value of the dog.

The following action against the owner of a savage dog, was decided in the court of King's Bench, June 2, 1813:

FINCH V. DUVAL.

This action was brought to recover damages for injury sustained by the plaintiff, who had been severely bitten by the defend

The attorney-general, for the defendant, called a number of witnesses, who gave the dog an excellent character for mildness and forbearance towards the honest and inoffensive, and for great discriminative sagacity in attacking thieves. All these witnesses, however, on their cross-examination, admitted that they had heard of the injuries sustained by the persons called on the part of the plaintiff; injuries which they had received from the dog, when peaceably walking on the king's high-way.

ant's dog; an animal, which, to use the|| Mr. Bewles, the magistrate, who desired the words of the pleadings, "was in the habit defendant to prevent his dog from going at of biting and worrying all mankind.” large, but of this caution he had taken no The defendant was a market-gardener, notice. residing at Camberwell, Surry; the plaintiff was a baker, dwelling at the same place. On the 24th of September, the plaintiff was proceeding through Loughborough-houselane, when he met the two sons of the defendant, accompanied by the obnoxious dog, an animal of great strength, between the lurcher and the bull-dog breed. Some altercation took place between the parties, and a gun which the plaintiff had in his hand was wrenched from him. The dog immediately flew at him, seized him by the cheek, and threw him to the ground. In that situation he repeatedly bit him. With much difficulty he got away from the animal, but his respite from violence was of very short duration. The dog again seized him, threw him into a ditch, and wounded him in various places; the sons of the plaintiff having refused, for a considerable time, to call him off. The plaintiff, it appeared, had received no less than eighteen bites, and was confined to his bed in consequence for several weeks. The surgeon who attended the plaintiff proved the injury he had sustained. was for a considerable time in a very perilous He

state.

Brome, a publican; Haynes, a constable; and a boy of the name of Appleton, proved the vicious disposition of the animal. The witnesses deposed to their having been seriously injured by the dog, at different periods, within the last two years. Brome and Appleton were confined for several months in consequence. Haynes applied to

Lord Ellenborough summed up the evidence, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages one hundred pounds

The following trespass for shooting a dog was decided in the court of King's Bench, Trinity Term, 1816.

MEEDFORD V. DU RIEU.

secondly, a justification; that the dog was of
The defendant pleaded not guilty; and,
such a ferocious disposition, as rendered him
dangerous to the neighbourhood, that pre-
vious to the shooting in question, the dog
had sprung upon him in such a manner as
had worried a child of the defendant's, and
Upon these pleas issue was joined.
to compel him to fire to defend himself.

fendant's pleas, but the jury found a verdict
Evidence was given in support of the de-
for the plaintiff, damages fifteen pounds.

killing of a ferocious animal can be justified, By this decision, it is quite clear that the if it be for the prevention, but not for the subsequent punishment of a personal injury.

[ocr errors]

Although a man may destroy a ferocious ani-comed by all the inhabitants of the place, as mal in self-defence, he cannot be allowed to an old friend and acquaintance. For the reprosecute his revenge for a previous injury.covery of this dog it was that the present acThe following remarkable case, relative tion was brought by plaintiff, to whom he beto the identity of a dog, came on in the Court longed at the time he was seized at Ball's of King's Bench, December 4, 1813. Pond.

RANDALL V. AMBLER.

This was an action to recover possession of a valuable Newfoundland dog. The case was one of considerable interest, and from its singularity, and the nature of the testimony adduced, occupied the attention of the court nearly four hours. The circumstances were as follow:

On the part of the plaintiff, several witnesses were called, who gave the following account of the "birth, parentage, and educa|tion," of the animal. About six years back, a person named Wagginton, residing near Moorfields, was in possession of a fine Newfoundland dog. By his permission this dog was introduced to a bitch of the same species, in the possession of a person named Monk.

About four years back defendant, who lives In consequence of this, a litter of puppies in Newgate-market, lost a very fine dog, of were produced, and Wagginton was allowed the Newfoundland species. He used every to choose one. When they had arrived at a means in his power at that period to recover || proper age he made choice of the handsomest, the dog, but without effect, and abandoned which was the dog now in dispute. He was all thought of recovering him. About six transferred by Mr. Wagginton to a person months back, however, as he and his servant named Hollyhawk, with whom he remained were walking near Ball's Pond, the servant for some years. While in the possession of directed his attention to a dog, which he per- Hollyhawk, in the course of his antics he unceived following two men at a short distance, fortunately ran near a carpenter's bench, and observing, "I am sure that's your dog Carlo. a sharp edge-tool having fallen upon him, Defendant was struck with the appearance inflicted a severe wound on the inside of his of the animal, and declared himself to be of right leg, in consequence of which apprehenthe same opinion. His man then called sions were entertained that he would have Carlo," and the dog turned round, as if re-been lame for life. This wound, however, cognizing an old friend. The men who walked healed, and was attended with no other effect before him, however, called "Lion," and the save leaving a large and perceptible scar animal, obedient to their voice, proceeded to on the spot where it had been inflicted. At them. Defendant and his man then approach-a subsequent period, Hollyhawk becom- ed, and, on closer inspection, became firmlying embarrassed in his circumstances, the persuaded that their first suspicion was well dog was handed over to a Mr. Wiggett, in founded, and, after some altercation, took ||whose possession he remained, until a farrier possession of the dog, and conveyed him having heard that Mr. Randall, of Ball's home to Newgate-market, where he was wel-Pond, wanted such a dog, applied to Mr. 42. 6 N

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Wiggett, to know if he would sell him. Mr. Wiggett answered in the affirmative, and agreed to dispose of him for six pounds. The farrier, in consequence, accompanied by another man, conveyed the dog to Mr. Randall, who paid the stipulated sum, and had kept the dog in his possession from that time until it was claimed and seized by de

fendant.

dog let go his hold, but his tail became much disfigured, and hung in a crooked form. The son of the defendant perceiving this, foreseeing that if it remained in that state, the beauty of the animal would be considerably diminished, immediately procured four splinths, or splinters, and putting the tail in its proper form, supported it with these splinths, and placing a bandage around it, On the part of the defendant it was proved, he let it remain until it became completely that he had obtained possession of a puppy knitted. The bandage was then removed; of the Newfoundland species, which grew up and, on feeling the tail, a knot, or enlargein Newgate-market, and was remarked by ment of the bone, where the fracture had all the inhabitants in that neighbourhood, been, was perceptible. Among other acnot alone for his beauty, but for the singu- quirements which attracted the particular larity of his acquirements. He was remarka- notice of the witnesses to the dog, were the bly fond of the water, and the nephew and circumstance of his carrying a basket in his son of defendant frequently conducted him mouth, receiving a penny from his master, to the fields in the neighbourhood of London, and going to a tripe-shop to purchase food; to wash him in ponds and other waters. In archly running away with bunches of the course of these excursions, it happened &c. The external marks on his body were greens, that he approached a mower that was at also singular, he had a white spot, surrounded work in a meadow, and who, with his scythe, with black, on the back of his neck, and a accidentally inflicted a severe wound on the black mark extending lower down his nose inside of his right leg, which at first exhibited on one side than the other. To these were very dangerous symptoms, but was finally added, a black mark in the hollow of his cured, leaving a visible scar behind. At a groin, and a black saddle mark on his back, subsequent period, the animal, which was all of which were recognized by the witnessextremely courageous, fought with a bull-es; every one of whom swore, in the most dog in Newgate-market, and while engaged, positive and unequivocal manner, that it was the master of his antagonist took him by the the dog of which defendant was possessed, tail, and broke one of the joints thereof, for and which he had lost about four years back. the purpose of parting them: this cruel The jury, after a short absence, returned operation had the desired effect, and the with a verdict for plaintiff.

FINIS.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« ПредишнаНапред »