The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1821-1823, 1822-07-03
June 8.
MAer vs. Tompkins..

"atHeF -. AOHiphdtSs
This was an action Of troUer and coa-
vsrsion, brought to recover the value of
a certain goose, of which the plaintiff al
legged that he vas the owner, and which
the aforesaid defendant surreptitiors!y,
tOrtaOnsty, itnareighbourly, and without the
fear ef-Squire Cunningham before his
eyes, had taken, carried away, and TO
his own use converted, out Of his the
said plaintiffs flock. We have not par
ticularly examinedthe declaration in the
case, and do not pretend 10 youch fer
literal accuracy ofphraseologv. Dana
ges claimed. se0ea shi!tiags. The plain
tiifidentifed his goose. by good power
Of witnesses, and showed particularly.
that it md a sir between the outside and
middle toe vi her right foot. Defend
ant proved the same mark to be on his
ggese also; and then, moreover, (and
that was enouyh,) that he had sir geese
some time ago--that he had but sir geese
aosg-that he ossgit TO have six geese ).
and slit, or no slts, he would have sir
geese. The goose was finally produced
on the spot, ushered into the presence
of the Court from the mouth of hinge
grey bag. twas awell-mannered goose.
she rolled up her sweet pewter eyes
"like duck in thunder" most respect
fally on all around, aud the Court look
ed wise, and the plaintiffs lawyer look
cd wicked, at the defendants lawyer. as
mach as to say, G What think YOU of
that, now?" Defendants attorney, how
ever. was too old warrior 10 be taken
By surprise, or give up the field upon a
mere demonstration. With the ready
resource ola veteran be challenged his
opponent at once, to bring his clients
gasier and the plaintiffs gerlcr into
Court. and rest the whole cause, and
the whole right and title to the aforesaid
goose, upon the choice she should make
Of, from and among the two said gan
ders, for her paramour; for every goose,
concluded the learned counsel, has her
partner and her flock.
There swims no goose so gray. but soon or late,
She finds some silly gander for her mate.
The plaintiffs counsel wisely declined
the challenge. 1t was this sane liber-
tine gander of the defendant, (he contin-
uedl that had seduce, he plaintiffs goose
from her true lord,' the plaintiffs GAM
der, at FIRST, unless she had been forci-
bly, taken away, as the declaration al
legged; and besides. it was well known
that geese, when deprayed, like the In
dams by civilization, would wander from
theii Vn proper mates, on the f4th of
February, every year; and about this
tine it was, he said, that the witnesses
proved the Plaintiffs goose to have been
missing. In the pure state of nature.
though,
+" Fer the base laws of seryitude began.
When Wild in wood the noble savage ran. >,
this corruption of manners was not
known among the feathered race.-po-
hgamy aud incontinencc were not even
heard of--every goose had her gander,
and had him for life, and the learned
counsel knew it. Were that the coudi-
ton OF the goose in question, he would
have no objection 10 rely upon the test
proposed. This thnnderbolt of natural
history completely staggered the learn
ed counsel opposite. lie made des-
perate rally" however, and 9 came in
in tine," bnt evidently n 6 suffercr -
His Honor the Judge, equally posed, re-
served Gas by thestatute he has the rightly
tppr days for his opinion. The judg.