The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-01 00:00:00

)romr crlicurr.

LEwne, ft • /eh I
RIDE. • •
Ltefofe)tr. Justice Ho i.n own. 1
anittri V. 'matins's L'S IkEWREI.LY, ES Q. •
This was an action of trespass for kill:ng it terrier doe, the pros
perty of the plaintiff. A second count churned :he defendant with
breaking and enteriugs close of the plaintiff—Plea, the general
issue.
Ale. Sergeant T.% T 1 AT sad Mr. LOX° conducted the plaintiff's
'cue ;and Mr, /tins HYATT and Mr. Ahoton tie the defendett's,
ntated_ to be a gentleman fernier. living at Fart-
aingtri.diht,unaenhrriol;nr:(:;frnhcdc'briai:gterin;da,...d tmhee
ndeefigendarrthbouola.ntleman of family
To prot•e the first-mentioned
Quennel, wee called, am
lea he won cutting wood
tiff? wife and a little bin
terrier dog. Witness
the deuble-barrelled
amlthe other a bull-dog
he distinctly saw the defendant
terrier th g ; the animal rolled ,
upon which the defendant
the dog fell dead on
wards.
On his cross-examination,
named Miner, that .he kne
not see the delendent shoot'
In re-examen:in" I,er
hotanre of one Ifeakher.
seed to have.hlen (hit
1 the matter he was,'
sin Chat one of the d.
neentill syespass
Dray,: from whose
otsiacti the defendant
ids Lints. On the da,
tree been committed,
yndham'', hounds, anal
wheat-field of the *Wiff e.
warned the defendant ti
is an angry man. era tiiil
Mr. nlantiivavr, foe that
lbestarmang. made by Quennel was utterly false in every 1101111_-
cater, and that, hi fact, the defendant never touched the plalntser.
dog. With respect to the second treepaso, that wok not denied*
and it was admitted, that for that the plaintiff meet beet 1 Indies,
with nominal damages, although the defendant did ndt hall)"
know at the time that the de!d imd whicii he had gene belonged tb
the plaintiff:
William Miller proved, that on the fi h December he was at
work in the plaintiff's coppice, and saw the defendant with ten,
pointstr dogs, and a double barrelled gun. lie had no bull.dog
with Lint; heard one shot fired and no more: saw the defendant
immediately afterwards pick up a hare which had just been killed;
did not see the terrier dog belonging to the plaintiff on the occaw
aeon. NeSt day the plaintiff came to the coppide; where witness
was working, and said that if anybody would come forward and.
swear that he saw the defendant shoot the i'og he would stand WI.
Witnesi had had throe court !Nation with Quenncl, who !old him
that he did not ace the dog shot. and that he knew nothlisg shoat
i:. This witness, on his crotnexaminstion, said he bad °cast,
onally worked tar the defendant, and that he was about 56 yeti
fern the spot when thf derenilant fired his gun.
Diggini said, he was at Oak in the coppice on the day
in question ; he was stout Intl raids from the plaintiff where
Quennel was working : whilst working he heard one gun go off,
and only one; did not know who fired it immediately afterwards
he saw the defendant come ne t of the wood, followed by two pointer
dogs; he hail no bull.do,;; did nit see the plaintiff 'a dog wkla
Mrs. Marten, nor did he see a little boy with hit.
George Collins, a game-keeper In the service of the defendant,
proved that on the day in question he went to look for his master
in the *Kid; he had seen him pan with two pointer dogs, and a
eonble-barrelled,gun ; he had no leakaeog wih him: witness
heard one gun. and only dne fired. At Venn time be was 60 yard*
from the place where Quennel was Mier! fract;i4pat leave his
work that he observed. Witriss. ditt not see hillsssOgle • the de-
fandant Item two bulldogs, which witness was in das 'habit of
feeding: one was old and useless; witness fastened them both
up; they were chained up when the defendant went out, and on
witness's return he still found them chaired up.
This was the defendant's case.
Mr. Sergeant TADI/Y, in reply, contended that the plaintiff's
case had not been shaken by the evidence called on the part of the
defendant. Two facts had been clearly established; first, that the
plaindff had beenposansed of a terrier dog on the day in yeastion,
and that the anmial had never Since been heard of; and second,
that the defendant kept hull-dogs. These were, at least, sufficient
to show that there was some probability in the story told by Quen-
nel, who appeared to hare no motive to give an imprliper colour to
the transaction to which he deposed. The defendant was stated, by
his Learned Counsel, torte a man of family and fashion. Thew
was no proof of this in the omit; but is it had been gravely stated ,
he was bound to believe it. He (Mr. Sergeant Teddy) did not
' profess to be much acquatnted with melt of fashion and feral,
still less waste familiar with their phiasoilogy. It raa, howl e,
in evidence, that when the plaintiffs son warned tho defendant to
of his father's land, but reply was, "'thee he would see hint --
first." Looking to all the circumstances of the case, he put It to
the Jury whether thry could dotal of the plaintiff's right to recavet
a verdict in respect of both causes of action.
Mr. Justice HOGROYb summed up the evidence, and left the
Jury to determine upon the credit they would give to the evidence
of Quennel, when contrasted with the testimony of the wittessen
called in contradiction. It was clear that the plaintiff was entitled '
to a verdict for the second trespass, which was not denied.
The Jurrfound their verdict ter the plaintiff—Damsges We. for
killing the dog, aiid Is. for the trespass on the plaintiff's land.
HILL V. STRINGER.
This was an action for maliciously killing a setter dog, the pro•
perty of the plaintiff.—Plea, the general issue.
Mr. GURNEY and Mr. Bo rr N D conducted the plaintiff's case,
and Mr. Serjeant Tntinn and Mr. l.oaa the defendant's.
The plaintiff is an attorney, GE Brighton, and the defendant a
farmer, near Steyning. In March last t:e plaintiff placed the deg
in question in the care of a butcher named Vincent. The animal
strayed from Mr. Vincent's premises to the farm of the defendant.
As soon as Ise made his nppearance, some of the defendant's peon
pie pursued hint with spuds. Ile was afterwards secured and tied
up. Food was given him, whisk he refused to eat; he however
Lipped water and drank milk. In three days he broke loose and
fought a pitched battle with the defendant's dog. The defendant
then caused the plaintiff's dog io be shot, under an idea that he was
mad. The question in the case was, whether the defendant had
reasonable ground for supposing that the dog was mad, and was CO
justified in putting him to death with a view to the public safety
Several witnesses were called on the part of the defendant, toe
the purpose of establishing the detercc.
Atter this action had been brought, the defendant killed his
own dog.
Mr. Justice Ho nnorn left the case to the Jury to say whether
the defendant had reasonable ground for supposing that the dog
was mad, for if he had then he would he justified in destroying
the animal, in order to protect the public from the consequence
likely to result from a mad dog remaining at large.
The Jury retired for about half an hour, and found their ve:.
diet for the defendant.

•Imentioned nevus, a labouring ntsni en
1, and he ca.ed, that on the dth p euete
wood in a cappiee of the plaintiff's. Tho
: boy were walking out, with • anal! tilt
is raw the defendant come into the woetigitlas •
fowling-pine, and two dosta-rono a
.dog ;at this time •inteas had 4
dehodaa :
t discharge his fowl" '
iiio4l:l
nal rolled over several &sea hot i net
Lfendant discharged the seemed
n the spit ; witness never saw Wade* Ifflag.
at
tination, he Batik rod that he had said tad.*
.Tie knew nothing of .the transaction, and did.
I shoot the plaintiff's slags. l.,
1, Le said he had bent banged ed ea at that
Ater,
ter who told him iseeN-
dots
i!tenh that Clew ilisn his work if he althiff, Ng *it*
quite Certain that the dolenatemir ire•ii.4,
dogs with him was' bull do& • ...
alli *Li pfond by the intiff's sees and £
e evidence it that the plaintiff keldi
tit to be eel • th a notice, not to treepeurin,
day whet t Wend trespass was illeAth lb
ted, the defendant was hunting with i.. 014
ds, and 'Psi stet W leap on honebaek hue at
isintlfrs. On :h*l occasion, the plaintiff's wits.
. Int to leave the field • it:stfa which the daissaist,
r, aOll he wouM Reeh!in .L.-::.,.. first.
r, fur the defendant, tindertoo* . ailallf that
-