Star.
London, England, 1816-07-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

tOURI OF KING'S BENCH, JULY G.
ItIUDFOND v. nu wry..
The plaintiff is a Gentleman residing at Somers-
'Awn, and the defendant is an Italian language-nrlster
hi the neighbourhood. The action was broultlit to
recover damages for ale loss of a valuable dog be.
longing to the plaintiff, which had lie=n shot by .the
defendant. The pleas were, first, not guilty ; and
next, a jiistification that the cl,,g was of su:11 a fern.
cious character as rendered him dangerous to the.
neighbonrhood ; that previous to the shooting in
question, the dog had worried a child of the defen-
dant, and had sprung upon him in such a manner as
to compel him to fire to defend himself.
Mr. TOPPING opened the case for the plaintiff, ob-
serving, that the Jury would be soon satisfied that
there was not the slightest ground for the justifica-
tion put upon the record, any more than for a sou
of supplemental plea, most ludicrous in its nature,
and having nothing to do with the merits of the
cause—iahat the plaintiff had not returned the dog
tinder the assessment ; he supposed that the defen-
dant meant to say, that because Mr. Mudford had
not paid the tax for his dog (which was however not
the fact), the animal was to be considered in the
light of an outlaw, whom any man was at liberty to
destroy. The dog of whom the defendant had most
wantonly and cruelly deprived the plaintiff was of a
curious Russian breed, and, although of a very large
size. was so generous and tractable in his nature, that'
children might play with him with the utmost secu-
rity ; and so intelligent and tractable, that, besides
protecting the house of his master, he almost per-
formed some of the domestic dunes, fetching Mr.
Mndford's slippers with the greatest regularity when
he returned home in the evening. At the time of the
shooting the animal was not more than 15 months
old, having bean the property of Mr. Mudford for
not quite a year. and he was as full of play and spi-
rits as is usual svith dogs of that species, but perfectly
harmless. Of this noble and affectionate creature

the defendant had deprived the plaintiff most unne-
cessarily, in the rummer which the witnesses would
detail, and for which the plaintiff "as entitled to
compensation : no ci,iarkes7 w!:ich the Jury could
give in such a case %wild peth l.'s be adequate to'
the loss sustained, but th:y wi:uld at least have the
erect of deterring the (It tt.nd2nt in future, and ot
teaching him a lesson rf English justice, with which
he, as an Italian, seemed to be unacquainted. Upon
the law of the case there could now be no difficulty ;
for although a man might destroy a ferocious ani-
mal in self-defence, he could not be allowed to pro-
secute revenge for a previous injury. In this case,
. however, no injury whatever had been committed.
Mr. Justice ABIriT said, that it was not spite clear
that the killing of an animal could be justified if it,
were for the prevention, but not for the subsequent
punishment of a personal injury.
Miss Elizabetn Whiting, sister to the plaintiff, de-
posed, that the dog was spirited and playful, but
perfectly harmless : it had been shot by the plaintiff
on the 6th of July, 1815 ; It previous to that date
the defendant had threatens he would destroy
it if he found it loose in a common field that-ran at
the back ot the houses in which the parties lived.—
She did not know that it had ever done any injury
to the defendant, or to his family* though his chil-
dren had often mixed the dog, and endeavoured to
provoke it to bite. In consequence of die represen-
tame of the plaintiff, for about ten days before the
6th of July, the animal had been confined to the
house, but on that day it escaped into the field, and
in the height of its joy was running about, and rolling
on the grass, when Mrs. Mudford (the plaintiff being
from home) sent out a maid servant to catch him ; but
she was for a long time unsuccessful. In the mean
time a Miss Barrey and the daughtex of the defen-
dant came into the field, and as if to tempt the dog
to attack them; passed it three or tour times, and
one of them threw a brick-bat at the animal, which
however continued its gambols, and only retaliated,
leaping against them. Mrs. du Rieu neat camel
into the field with a rung child in her arms, which
she put in the way of the dog ; he did not touch it ;
but she immediately called to her husband to come
out and shoot the animal. The defendant came ac-
cordingly with a pistol, and kicked the dog twice in-
effectually, while Mrs. Mulford with a piece of meat
was endeavouring to entice the dog into the premises.
She was just succeeding, and was dragging- it over
a low wall, when the defendant tired and shot the
slog in theloins ; it ran round agony two or three
times, then proceeded to its accustomed station in
!the valuer, and there died immediately.
Mary Holland fully confirmed this statement in all
particulate.
Charles Withers, a boy who had been lying down
in the field, said that Miss Barrey and Miss du Rieu
were first attacked
.by the dog, and that the defen-
dant shot it while it was standing still.
*James Butler, who had known the dog ever since
it was in the possess-on of Mr. Mudford, swore that
'it was of a most gentle disposition.
'lhe ATTORNZY-GENERAL, for the defendant, ob-
-xerved, that according to the evidence it was not to
be complained that Mr. Mudford had not inserted
this animal in the assessment as a dog liable to be
taxed, but that he had not returned him as a.servant,
for be performed all kinds of domestic offices; and
if the defendant would have ventured ,to undertake
the task of teaching him, he seemed to be so intelli-
gent, that probably be might even have become a
proficient in languages: such an attempt would re-
quire no small courage, fox, if he were properly in.

Structer% Thai* *is most toe% ti- I;it ***et,
and had often attacked the ending and We chil-
dren of his family. He should Mt think it necessity,
however, to enter into the general character of the.
animal, because he could thew what was sufficient to
establish the justification, that, besides the alarm given
to Miss Barrey, and the attack made upon the child,
the dog had twice flown upon the defendant, had torn
his trowsers, and was in the act of returning, when
the defendant fired, and rescued himself from immi-
nent danger.
-He then called Mr. Frederick Barrey, Mr. Henry
du Rieu, Miss du Rieu, and James Ferguson, from
whose testiMony it appeared, with some variations,
that Miss Barrey and Miss du Rieu had not gone into
the field to the dog, but that the animal had rushed
furiously out of the house of the plaintiff, and had
attacked them : that they screamed for assistance,
when Mr. du Rieu came out, armed with a pistol,
which he did not fire until he had twice endeavoured
to drive away the dog by blows. It seemed doubtful,
however, whether he had fired to prevent a renewed
stack, as it was admitted that the dog, when shot,
had fallen over the low wall into the premises of Mr.
Mud ford.

After a reply from Mr. TOPPING, and a charge
from Mr. Justice AnsoT, the Jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages sels lis.—costs 40s.

SAND6RSON V. RUSSEL.

This was an action for slanderous words. The
patties were both inhabitants of Hampton, where the
Plaintiff was proprietor of the Bell Inn, and the De-
fendant kept a perfumer's shop, and had also a cir.
ctilating library. The plaintiff had held the office
of churchwarden, and the defendant to his other occu-
pations added that of parish sexton. On one occasion,
whilst.in the shop of Mrs. Long, at Hampton, it
was proved that, speaking of the plaintiff, he used
the following expressions wOu1(1 support Mr.
Church; our Minister, but never will I support that
d—d Sanderson ;he has robbed the parish in his si-
tuation of churchwarden of AIM and 1 can prove
it." On another occasion the defendant was in the
shop of Mrs. Downton, whose husband had recently
been appointed to the office of churchwarden, when,
alluding to that circumstance, he said, ‘,I hope the
affairs of the parish will now be better managed than
they have been, for Sanderson has robbed the parish
of £7OO, and by G--D I can prove it."- This was
the slander complained of. The defence set up was,
that the defendant had never used the words imputed
'to him, as intending to insinuate that the plaintiff
had stolen the property of the parish, but that in
what.he said he alluded to a certain parish property
held by the plaintiff, and held, as the defendant con-
sidered, at too low a rate.—The Jury found a verdict
for the Plaintiff—Damages Is. costs Is.