The Sun.
London, England, 1816-07-08 00:00:00

MULWORD V. D'llliU.

This was an action in which the plaintiff songht
to recover is compensation in damages for the
lois of a valuable dog which had beenslit.by the
defendant. The parties were next door neigh-
bours, residing at Somers Town. The dog in
question, which Was 'of, the Russian breed,, was
about fifteen months old, and, accerding to the
plaintiff's witnesses, was of the most harmless
and docile temper. The deferident bad a family
of children, and these were, on various occa-
sions, in the habit of teazing and irritating the
animal ; and on one occasion the defendant him-
self had kicked hint violently. It further appeared.
that the defendant had declared he would shoot
the dog, if ever' tie caught hint loose. In conse-
quence of this threat, the dog" was kept a close
prisoner from the 26th of June, 1815, -OR the
6th Of. July, on which day he, by accident, got
into a field at the back of the defendant's and plain-
tiff s gardens. The plaintiff's female servant was
sent to get him in again, but fur sortie time Ler en-
deavours were vain. In the mean time, one of
the daughters of the defendant, and a young fe-
male companion, went into the field and crossed
the animal, one of them throwing a brick bat at
him. Mrs.D'itlin, and an infant about four years
old, also came into the field, but the dog did, not
injure any of them. At length the defendentCame
out with a pistol the dog went to him, and jumped
up -upOn'llim, but did him no injury, and had, in
fact, turned round, and was getting over the wall
into his muster's garden ; Mrs.. %idiom!, the
plaintiff's wife, having bold of hint, and being
in the act of pulling the animal, over, when
the defendant OM at WM, and woOnded him so
severely that he died in a few miiites.---The master
had heels, offered tifteeit guineas for the animal,
and bud refused it. It was alio stated that the
plaintiff had 'offered to keep the animal muzzled,
if the defendant would pi owe that lie.had :attacked
Any p 1 his children or tamily. On the part of the
defendant, witnesses: were called to prove that the
daughter of the defendant, and a feat le comp-
nloll, were walking in the field, together, at the
time the dog got into the field, and that he im-
mediately rap at thein Their sereenis brought
the defetidanfouteithen tbe animal attacked Lim,

Itittt tiguitt. Ay hen the defeivittlit shot hint.--T11,:
Jury Emma t verdict for the phiitaiff—Damages
15/. I.s3.—Costs

. . ,
c.OthiT OF EkcflEduiiit—,,:i•uutiAvi.

1,-ottErGx,LACE.

Tllll AT iaRN'EY-GENEtiAL 4/. JOHIt AND tiVILLIABI

HAY WARD.

was an information_fila by the Attorney-
General, which sought the condemnation of a
considerible quantity of thread and silk lace, of
great value,, found in the possession of the de-
fendants, %Welt thy daiiiweit as not subject to
forfeiture, but which was claimed by the Crown
as having been implied without payment of duty,
and not having upon them arose maths which are
affixed at the CustomAimienptin all lice which
passes through that establishineht.—A comniuni-
cation took place between the Counsel for the
Crown and the defendant,' and it was agreed that
a' verdict shOnld be tal.ten for the Crown ; but the
amount was not specified. This was the only
-cause tried.