The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-06-17 00:00:00

A CURIOUS QUESTION OF IDENTITY.

At the Bow-street police-curt, In London, Mrs. Ravens-
croft, • dealer in live animals, living In Great St. /Wires-
street, Seven Dials, was summoned for refusing to give up
pouseision of a valuable white Persian cat, alleead to be the
property of Mr. Barry, merchant, of Mt.. James-street, And
Croydon.
The complainant deposed that the cat in question, a
great favourite in the family, was enifsed from their
residence at Croydon about eleven weeks ago, and
there could be no doubt it was stolen, because the cat
was too devoted to them to leave of its own accord. A
few days ago a cousin of witness happened to be pawing
through Seven Diale, when he saw the cat in front of
defendant's house, and identified it directly. lie told
witness, who then went to the shop and identified it
also. The sinter of witness accompanied him, and she
too knew the cat knmediately.
The defendant denied that it was complainant's cat.
. . . .

lire the cat, which had been brought into court,
began to mew vociferously. At the same moment a
buret of melody came from the Floral I fall next door,
where a grand concert was in progressp and for a short
time the voice of Patti and the vocalisation of pussy
appeased to struggle for supremacy. The lid of the
basket was opened, and the cat attempted to escape,
amidst roars of laughter in the court. The Qom-
plainant, after examining it, said there were two cats
of the same description at the defendant's shop, but he
believed the one produced was the cat which had been
milt.ed at Croydon.
Mr. Willie, the solioitor for defendant, assured the
Court that the animal in the basket was the one claimed
by Mr. Berry at the shop. There had been no jugglery
in the matter.
. . .

Complainant, en looking at the animal again, said
he was quite certain as to its identity, and he called
his cousin, who also swore to the same fact. Mr. terry
added that when he first went to defendant's they
asked is. and he offered to give 10e. for it rather then
have the trouble of summoning them, but they then
declined to give it op for less than £2.
The magistrate asked if the defendant would give
the cat for Ms, now.

The defendant sail certainly not, as it never wee
complainant's.
Mr. Willis called an old lady named Randall, who
said she had had the cat for a year and (Riven months.
It had belonged to her daughter, and the cat knew her
personally. (Laughter.) When she had it first it was
little more than a kitten.

Mr. Berry said It was more than four years old. If
the defendant knew the person of whom she had the
cat, she might have referred him to such a person, but
declined to do so.

The Magistrate naked if there were any special
marks about the cat by which it could be identified.
Mrs. Nekes, a curious little elderly lady, of 4,
York road, raid obi, had been a nurse in the lierry
fondly for years. She knew the cat, produced, ever
skier it was a child. (Laughter. It was four years
old last February.
Another witners said it had some lumps of a peculiar
nature not common to cats.

The daughter of Mrs. I ndall identified the cat, and
invited the court to see it embrace her. Beyond its
general appearance it bad a scar on the tail, caused by
a burn. She was certain it was under two years obi.
The magistrate felt considerably puzzbil by this
oonflicting testimony. He thought, however, that his
Wet course would he to dismiss the summons, and then
if the complainant could strengthen his case on further
Inquiry, the question might be reopened.

pre DOGS.

At the Clerkenwell Police Court Miss Stsint W inured
Stubbs, was summoned by Alexander Williams, on
behalf of the Vestry of Clerkenwell, to show cause
why ehe allowed her premises to be in such a dirty and
filthy state as to be a nuisance and injurious to health,
caused by her keeping • number of doge in and
upon the said premises. Mr. Williams said he was
sanitary inspector of ClerkenwelL A few days since
he visited the defendant's premises, and found on the
Noma floor fifteen dogs. The defendant, who is a rich
maiden lady, had kept dogs in the room for years.
The flior was an inch thick with filth, and there had
been no water on It for years. He then handed in
the following medical certificate

t. Vestry Hall, Clerkenwell. tiny 2% 1671-1 hereby certify
that I have this day inspected the house, No. 41, Penton-
street, and found many dogs in the front room on the second
floor, which Is Inhabited ; the it tor of this apartment is
covered loran Inch In depth with the trodden excrement and
urine of the degs, and has evidently not been cleaned for
years. Moreover, the stench In the room is most abominably
foul and offensive, and sect nutty dangerous to health. The
woman occupying the apartments mmt certainly be insane
to to able to tolerate such disgusting filth.—J. M. Gl:Mail,
M.D., 111.1t.C.P , medical officer of Clerkenwell.
Mr. Williams furtker stated that that he had
served an order on the defendant to abate the nuisance,
but that had not been done, and, an the defendant did
not now appear, he had to silk the magistrate to make
an order to have the nuisance abated, the place
properly cleaned, and to prevent the recurrence of the
nuisance.

The Magistrate made the order au anked, and ordered
the defendant to pay the coete.