The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-07-22 00:00:00

PENRUDDOCK v. STIBY AND WIFE.

At Worcester Assizes the above cause lit I well I riot, and
was an action, brought by the plaintiff, a widow lady, for an
assault committed on her by the female defendant. Turd,'-
true (omitting technicalities) was that the plaintiff had
assaulted the female defendant, and had set a tierce dog at
her young ehibl. Tins was the subject of cross•action,
w Inch ti, parties were reversed.

The plaintiff lives at Fyfield Manor-house. and the
defendants rent a farm close at hand from the plain.
tiffs son. Some unpleasantness had 'arisen between
the plaintiff and the female defendant, the origin of
which the plaintiff professed herself unable to explain.
The first assault issoplained of was on the 23rd of
February last, when Mrs. Stiby tried to take the wall
of the plaintiff, who was walking with her daughter,
and, failing this, made use of a very offensive gesture ;
but the rod cause of complaint anise on the lot of
March. On the afternoon of that day, about three
o'clock, the plaintiff was leaving her house by one
of the entrances which leads into a private-road,
and in doing at crossed the dairy-yard and the
wood-yard. lin the dairy-yard the dog, which was
afterwards produced in court, was chained up.
The cook had been directed to take the dog to an
orchard where there was another dog kennel. The
housemaid went to open the door for her mistress, and
directly the latter got outside Mrs. :Why sprang for-
ward, put her Insist on her shoulder, and threw her
flown on her back. The housemaid tried to raise her
but failed, and called to the cook, who came out, and
with her the dog. The plaintiff was assisted by her
servants to the gardener's cottage, some distance off,
and there was so ill that she returned home. She had
a severe fall, a bruise on her back, a blow on the back
of her head, and one of her teeth knocked out. Cross
summonses had been taken out before the magistrate
and dismissed. Actions were then brought in the

.....
County Court, hut in consequence of the Sarge made
against her of setting the dog at the child, which was
persisted in at the County Court, on an application to
postpone the caaesin consequence of Mn'. Penruddock's
illness, she felt bound to remove her action into the
Superior Court. which was due in each case.
The cross-examination of the plaintiff and her wit-
nesses disclosed that the defendants' case was to the
following effect -- that the plaintiff had seen Mrs.
Stiby's children coming up to the private walk, that
she had gene to the dog and taken it out, and set it at
a little girl of five Tears old, whom it knocked down ;
that then Mrs. Stiby had interfered, and pushed the
plaintiff away to get at the dog ; that the plaintiff had
a strong objection to children being in this private
road, and had once said she would have a bucket of
water thrown over the children. On the "tiler hand,
this was denied, and it was asserted that the child in
question was many yards off. The cross-examination
was further directed to elicit from the witnesses that
they had ,given different accounts at other times, but
this was denied by all of them.
- - •

Stiby and her nursemaid were called in tsupport
of the defendants' ease, and deposed that the plaintiff
hail come out unaccompanied by any servant, and set
the dog at the child with t•ries of " At her, at her!"
and that the accident happened by the push given by
Mrs. Stiby iii reseunr• her child. Several other wit-
nesses were calks', aria at the close lof the defendants'
case Mr. Cole intimated that he should have to call
seibroessi,s in reply.
The jdry rsturned a verdict for the plaintiff for one
farthing damages, and the learned judge granusl a cer-
tificate for a 11 Wad 'MI .11,1 for costs. The cross
action was not tried.