The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-11-18 00:00:00

Lily joined
AMUSING CASE.

oselt

PHILLIPS V. LENNOX

The plaintiff in the case. Mr. Phillips, resides in Great
Horner.street, and the defendant, Mr. Lennox, resides in
Dexrer street, hut at the time when the cause of the
present action arose, he resided in Poulton-cum-Seacom be.
The action was brought to recover £5, the value of a
dog. Mr. Grocott appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Sim•m, barrister, for the defence.

According to the statement et Mr. Grocott, on the part
of the plaintiff, it appeared that in the month of June last
year, his client lost a favourite spaniel dog, and that a
short time ago he discovered that the dog was in the
possession of the defendant. On receiving this informa-
tion, he demanded the animal; and on the defendant
refusing to give it up. he brought the case before Mr.
Mansfield, the stipendiary magistrate. The facts having
been laid before the magistrate. he btated that it did not
come under the head of a felonious offence, hut seernei
theto h i
pmr
etsoe
tre
amcot
,ema
wquestion fora
ugh t civil
.mr tribunal.rocoe
Grocott
having
i ncit

of the ease to his honour, pro:

the plaintiff, in

support of the plaintiff's case.
One of the witnesses, an intimate friend of the
plaintiff, stated that he had seen the dog above
a thousand times, and was positive that the animal in question
was the one which the plaintiff had lost. The other witness,
formerly a servant girl in the plaintiff's employ, also identified
the dog. She said that she had left the plaintiff's employ six
months before the dog was lost ; but, within a month of the
time of its being lost. she called at the house to see her former
mistress, who was inoisposed. and on that occasion she saw the
dog at the house. The plaintiff, in the course of his examina-
tion, stated that he was sure the dog was his property ; he
could identify it by oneof the clawsof the right leg being cut off.
At this part f the case an amusing incident occurred.
His Honour directed the dog to lie brought into court,
for the purpos.- of ascertaining whether it could recognize the
witnesses for the plaintiff. The animal was in a few minutes
forthcoming-, and, on being brought into court, his honour
directed it to he brought upon the bench. This was accord-
ingly done, and the disputed specimen of the canine species
was pl,teed at the foot of his honour, in charge of the plaintiff,
whose duty it became to keep bow wow quit, and not commit
himself by being guilty of a contempt of court. The plaintiff
and his witnes es were then directed la, the judge to approach
the dog. On the plaintiff calling it " Dash." it jumped to-
wards him, and began to play with him, and evinced great
finni,iarity. The two witnesses were then called to it, when it
showed an intimate knowledge of both. His honour then
directed the parties on behalf of the defendant to go through
the satne process; and on the defendant calling the dog "Jessy,"
it evinced as much fondness for him as it had previously done
for the plaintiff under the name of " Dash." It also showed
an intimate acquaintance with some of the detendant's wit-
nesses; and more particularly with a nurse girl, who lived with
defendant near :wo years ago. On the judge perceiving that
the animal seemed equally on good terms with both plaintiff
and defendant, his hono .r remarked that the d. g reminded
him of the notorious captain in the" Beggar's Opera" :
" How happy could I he with either,
Were 'tother dear charmer away." (Laughter.)
In the course of the examination of one of the wits
the plaintiff. the judge asked him whether it (meat

- -
rejoil.ted,-" I mean is it a gentleman dog, or a lady dog," when
the witness answered, • Oh I a female dog, your honour."
(Roars of laughter.)
On the part of the defendant it was stated that he had had
the dog given to him three years ago by a gentleman named
Kelly, residing in Cheshire. Ile produced five witnesses who
deposed to the fact of defendant having' had the dog in his
possession during the whole of thepast three years, and that
the witness Kelly's son had found the dog in Birkenhead six
mouths before it was given to the defendant. Mr. Simon also
contended that there might be other dogs like the one claimed-
by the plaintiff, as the mother had had eight pups bearing-
an exact resemblance to it. Mr. Simon elicited the fact by an
examination of the animal, that the claw which had been rut
off was on the left leg, and not on the right leg, as stated by-
the plaintiff. On one of the witnesses for the defcmlant pre-

seating himself for recognition by the dog, he would have
nothing to ao with him, on which the judge remarked that the
animal showed a characteristic sagacity, and great discrimina-
tion. in refusing to recognise those whom he did not know.
(Loud laughter.)
Ultimately his Honour gave a verdict for the defendant, on
the ground that the defendant had had the dog for three year.,
and that some of the witnesses had Proved that there might be
other dogs like it. Another reason why he thought he ought to
give the defendant a verdict was that the plaintiff had stated
that the claw was cut oft the right leg. whereas it was proved

that it was t, ieg which had lost one of its clawi. lie
would, however, order that the defendant should pay half the
costs. as I lie plaintiff had clearly believed that the animal was
his property.

OWENS V. FAIRCLOUGII.-COMMITTAL OF THE DEFENDANT.
This was an action brought for the recovery of the sum of

£2 18s. against the defendan., a portion of which was lent
money. The defendant did not appear and the plaintiff
having proved that the defendent and his wife had abused her

the plaintiff, with immediate payment, and ordered that the
defendant lie imprisoned for 40 days if the order of the court
w,s not complied with.

SUMMONSgS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
It having appeared in the evidence adduced is suppOrt of the
above case, that the wife of the defendant and a fetnale friend
of her's bad threatened in the anti-room of the court that they
would murder the plaintiff on her leaving the court, his Hon-

therm compelling their attendance hem e him to-morrow (this)
morning of nine o'clock.
CURIOUS SCENE ON THE RISING OF THE COURT.
Just as his Honour rose to leave the court, about six o'clock
in the evening,

Mr. SUMNER (one of the examiners of the court), who stood
in close proximity to a dark-complexioned gentleman, shouted
out in an unusually loud voice, Your honor, this man is call-
ing me the Manx Cat."

Isis lioNou looked at Mr. S., as if he did not understand
Mr. Sumner'g meaning.

Mr. Sum NER. has called me the Manx Cat, yourhonor.
Ilia HONOR (addreasiog the delinquent), you had better take
care what you are about, sir.

The Accuse,,, whose name we lid not learn, protested that
he had never made use of the term.

Mr. SUMNER, (with great violence.)—lt's falsc, sir. If I had
him outside, I would pull his nose. _

H is Ho Nou R.—Come, come ; let us have none of this nonsense.
The Accused was again about to protest his innocence, t, hen
His HoNova said—lf you are impertinent here, sir, I shall
fine you ; and in all future cases I shall never impaie a leaf
fine than £3.

The accused again declared that he had never made use of the
expression. . _ _

and do not go
An liner-