The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1876-02-22 00:00:00

WEYMOUTH COUNTY uounr.
SAT L RIM% - Eefore Mr. T. E. P. Leiroy, judge.

AN EXPENSIVE DOG.

Guy v. Resit was a claim for £lo damages, through
defendant's great mastiff bitch biting the plaintiffs hand.
—Mr. flower,' appeared for plaintiff, Mr. Hanne for de-
fendant, who is a gent.leitian of independent means, and
keeps an enormous mastiff bitch, which bit plaintiffs
hand as he was passing through the street where the
bitch WAS bringing up her pups. Plaintiff went ti the
shop if Mr. Poole, chemist, and had the wounds cauterised
fir fear of hydrophobia, and was afterwards attended toy
lir. 'lizard. Ile was then unahle to attend to his occupa-
tion as a whoel.chairman, and now claimed special
datnages.—The facts were admitted by defend:ult, but he
hail paid £1 into Court, and pleaded that the at ~,,,, ut
was sufficient. —Mr. !lowanl said the man hail lost two
weeks' work, which lie estimated at lib. a week, awl there
were also the fee to the doctor. to the chemist, and plain.
tiffs anguish and anxiety—Mr. Hanne contended that
plaintiff could not charge damages for mental anguish.
Mr. !lowan' produced a case to prove the contrary ;
but Mr. Hamm said it only showed Het damages might
be charged for bodily pain—Plaintiff sail no man could
tell what he suffered in his mind ; he had read in • paper
of a man going mad through being bitten by a dog.—Mr.
Menne said plaintiff, not content with summoning defen-
dant here. had brought defendant before the magistrates,
and he had to pay £2i.6,L there.—Mr. Howard replied
that was for another cause ; the bitch eas walking about
uniuuuled, and the summons was taken out in order to
prevent its biting any one else—His Honour thought
that plaintiff should have £5, beside the costs, and with.
draw the cue.—Mr. Hamm objected that plaintiff wanted
to snake • job out of the accident; he had Mill that he
was not so much hurt, but he meant to make a good
thing out of it. Another sovereign would be quite siitti-
dent for him to receive, without costs.—Mr. Poole,
chemist, in answer to the Judge, said the man's hand
was bitten very severely, the back was bitten through,
and he had a swelling under the arm some days after.—
The Judge said plaintiff ought to have £5, and the taxed
costa—These were gone through with much contention
by the advocates, and Mr. Ilanne made them amount to
gi Rh. There Was also •good deal of acerbity shown about
Dr. Tizanfs costs. —Mr. Ilan lie intimate.l that the plaintiffs
advocate relied upon Mr. Poole ; but Mr. Howard said that
Dr. Tizard had last night arranged that he would be
present about half-past 10, and, therefore, had gone on his
visits earlier this morning in order to be at the Court in
time. So warmly did the learned gentlemen reply to
each other that his Honour had to ask them not to eon.
tinue.—Mr. Howard said XI 16s, was the very lowest
amount the plaintiff would be entitled to for costs: be
would, according to the practice of the Court, he entitled
to very much more--and he ought at least to have £2, or
be would actually be punished for being bitten by the
dog. The costs were disputed with a surprising amount
of pertinacity, but at last it was agreed defendant should
MI:3 al and a 004 in addition to the Li already
into Uourt.

lurnTltliit SEQUEL To "TES RIVAIA"
CAubh V. De g was a juchrinent summons ; the order
was for C 2 in a fortnight awl .C 2 a month after
wards, but Mr. Menne said that defendant hail paid
and had dod tred 11,t IVondd nitlier rot in gaol
than pay. The anginal it :Lion was for a hal nice °Willa on
:1 bill id sale.• •fewl int wai eross,ealitined by Nlr.
II nine awl s WI lie lii I dn.`, the ini•lninellt liiieirryinz
on his intsioe-a as 41-•••4l4rocer all Ilsh ile r hot 1,.
horse di I len ;.•I .44 t Itial lent to In. hrothor.
bad 110; 3 lid Ile to l'Alland and NCI: up L 1 or
AZ we-k 1 had ion 1..41 Mr, If einn so. The I. tne aa4
Once ttO a y ear, hilt it .1.14 Ills wife served in
tile bar. and they hit a Ii Iger ; hal ale. let his suede,
but lii net get muck by o'4. Hail said he would rather
g,. t prison than he imposed upon, but not that he would
rather nit in gaol than pay. Earned about 15s. a week at
his own trade. :sine., the MU of s ilu was nut in he had
not tetight any furniture, but could not tell what Idi wife
hat height. 'there WWI (minter, in the house, but it
belonged to his linither, whoha.l bought it at different
Pktres and put it into the house.—Defendant was closely
eXa7 44 i 44 ed by his Honour a, to any furniture being bought
by 111, wife, but ho protested he did not know be could
not tell if any other furniture Wag put in. His Honour
Ond a nem mast keine when he tea, living in a 1101.140 if
any fresh furniture was liniaglit in.—Defenilant IM*
e?( 'mined by Mr. Howard, mei s iil that at the thee he
married he had no capital, and Could, gave up thin,, to
them on • bill of sale, they had fl. lileana beside. £I) was
paid to Chubb or his lawyer towards the debt on the bill
of stic—Mr. Hamm replied that defendant soil live years
of the lease for .C. 50 —he paid Lint., plaintiff, and gave .bill
for £10; but that w.lf dishonoured, an I he pai I 15, so
that Chubb had only .Cl 5 out of his I:2oo.—Detetulant con-
tinued in answer to Mn. that his wife was laid 1111
ill, he was sold tip under the bill of sale, had nothing left,
and hail to work for wages. :since Mr. Chubb's wife ran
away awl left him, the trade had declined very much, and
lie hal now no means id pa, ing the money more than at
10i. a month.—The Judge : Then your suodest proposition
I is, to be 86 months in paying the delit.—Mr. Hann°
also pointed out that nest year another amount would he
due. il, then questioned defendant whether he and his
wife had not been out to dancing parties.—Defendant said
he could not remember. The Judge thought his me y
Niel very accomtnodating, and asked about defendant s
payments to his brewer.—llefewhint admitted having
paid. —Further exiu aa iaa ed he sail he had only lss. a week
profit on his fruiterer basiness, and that was his wages.
trl paid his brother ss. seknos li:dement for tie furni-
ture ; that was the rent of it.—His Honour said this was
a ...LA., of I ,1,,tit4,-y awl determination not to pay :
datit had paid his brewor, whereal he ought Li have paid
a ja.lguvait creditor first. Ile ordered a CollllUitt Al 01 10
days, unless the defendant paid £2 in a fortnight, and £2
a month afterwards.—lit the eour,e of the case it was
stated by Mr. Howard that a jealousy existed on the part
.4 Chubb towards Denning, the liter having married •
young person who was formerly housekeeper to Chubb.

OLDIlrieS DILLS.

linbbetbi v. N 47; ‘7.1.....; claim by Mr.
Itabbett., butcher, St. E Imunds.street, against Mr. Cox,
gilder, St. 3taryottreet, for In. WI. for a !Moulder of
mutton, and Iw for chop,. -Thu bill M 24 dated in 1874,
unit the Judge aaked why it had been allowed to go on.—
Mr. Itabbets replied that it had been sent in regularly,
and he understood Mr. Cox promised towel and pay it.—
Mr. Cox imid the plgintiff hail been told the bill was
wrong.—Mr. Rabbette called John Holloway, whole in his
employ, and who btateil that he had called several titues
for the money, and Mrs. Cox told him she would enquire
into it., and bend down the mosey. Could nut remember
delivering the meat. -Mr. Itabbetta said lie received the
order from Mr. Cox's daughter, and bent a boy with the
meat. He then produced his order book, showing an
entry against Mr. Cox, gilder." He also remembered
receiving the order and sending the meat.—The Judge
thought Mr. Cox should call his wife to btato what she
knew of it: but Mr. Cox said she would not come into a
Court. —His Honour replied then the only evidence w.is
on the plaintitra chic, and it was uncontradicted. Mr.
Cox's wife was evidently in doubt, for she sand she would
enquire about it.—Mr. Cox iroduced two bins one for
ss. thl., and the other for 6s. 14.—Verdict for plaintiff.