Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-03-05

John Ausgrave William Martin.
Marion Circuit Court, IndianG-1fOrer and

Marion Circuit Court, Indtdnd-1r0rer and
Conversion.
This case has been tried, and ike the first trial,
has resulted in a verdict against the plaintiff The
facts proved show the uncertainty of human testino-
ny, and the great caution with which such testimony
as to the identity of animals should be received by
juries in judicial proceedings. the matter in con-
troverSy in this case was large dark bay gelding,
with his right eye blind hip little off, white in
his forehead the size of half dollar in the shape of
half moon a mark es from cut between his fetlock
and hoOf his left hind leg lump his forehead
just over the half moon, scratch his hip, as if
made by nail, hard trotter, and nigging racker,
spirited in harness, carried his head high, frequently
tossing in the air. Such was substantially the de-
scrpon Of the animal claimed by both plaintiff and de-
PENDANT, and the question submitted to the jury was,
whether this animal belonged t. the plaintiff to the
defendant, claiming title through different channels,
it being clear that if either had ever owned him. the
other had no title to him.
The plaintiff proved by number of witnesses
whose credibility could not be questioned that the
animal belonged to him; each witness had owned
him, and described all his marks, both natural and
artificial, before they him in the possession of
plaintiff; proved that he hit the animal on the
forehead and made the lump with his whip another
that the animal had run away with the pow and cut
his leg between the etock and hoo and had scratched
his hip with nail, and all that had owned him ident
fed him. positively; as did many of the neighbors
who had seen him in plaintiffs possession up TO the
time be was stolen from his stable. The plaintiff
here rested, and who could have doubted the result
But as if to show the uncertainty OF human affairs and
the liability of the best and positive wit
nesses to be Mistaken the defendant called up and
introduced number Of witnesses of equal credlblity
with those examined by the plaintiff, and most posi-
lively proved that this identical horse his tracing
the animal from colt, and proving concusively that
he had been the possession of the plaintiff
The witnesses, like those of the plaintiff had describ
ed his gaits, carriage, natural and artificial marks,
before they had him in the possession of the pre-
sent owner; one stated that he struck the animal in
the forehead with the bride Bit and made the lump
there; another that the animal got his foot the
line and his fetlock and still another, that he
ploughng him and his hip was scratched by sharp
edge of stump-all tesifyng to the eye being out,
and the other marks and the only discrepancy in the
description as given by all the witnesses either
side was that some of plaintiffs witnesses testified
that plaintiffs horse twelve years old last spring,
and of defendants witnesses testified that de-
PENDANTS horse only nine years old at that time.
1t was proved however, that defendant had his horse
in possession before plaintiff lost his This evidence,
no doubt, thrown into the scale of defendant and not
the evidence of Identity caused the scale of plaintiff
TO kick the beam, and verdict returned accord
ingly. This was where the interest of the
parties brought out the evidence fully both sides
but had poor prisoner been indicted for stealing
Musgrave's horse, and been found in strange land
in possession of Martins horse, wo betde him, il
met by the testimony of Musgrave, to identity.
Such is the great uncertainty of human testimony.