Wisconsin herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1846-1849, 1847-04-17

I 1 u /
or The following report made for
the Independent American, is publish
ed in the Herald by request. Il will
be new to most of our readers.
The Dog Case.
Farrier Before justice Plummet'
Bogtrotter, In Trespass.
Accidere nee sicut iIcet canem,
Vel veEenum dare in pane,n. i g
K GRoTIUs.
'ris wrong TO butcher dogs or cane Them.
Or give them poisoned cakes 10 pain them.
This was an action Of Trespass
brought before Esquire Plummet,
Justice Of the Peace in and for the
county of Grant, by the plaintiff Far
rier against the defendant Bogtrotter,
to recover damages for killing plaintiffs
dog. The defendant plead the gener-
al issue, not guilty in manner and form
&c.; whereupon came a jury of six
good and lawful men, who were duly
sworn to try said issue.
The plaintiff clearly proved that
the defendant had struck his dog. 1t
appeared in evidence that the defen-
dant met the plaintiffs dog while fol-
lowing and worrying defendants hor-
ses; whcreupon the defendant cut the
dog in two with an axe; whereby the
dog ceased to be quadruped and be-
came two bipeds. No positive proof
however, went to show tina! the bisec-
ton Of the dog proved fatal. When
last seen by witness, the dog was still
alive and kicking. "The dog was a
fat dog; but yet not so almighty fat
either. The dog was in fine working
order-too fat to be quarrelsome but
too lean for sausages. Had known the
dog from puppy--knew nothing a
gainst the dogs Observation-Disclosures
be was of an imported breed, but
thought he was peaceable and well
disposed toward our government and
peoplc-had known him, dog and pup,
for three years-had never said that
the dog was sorry dog, or a mean
dog. or that he was not worth powder
and shot to blow him to ---; had
never in fact, bemesned the dog. II
the dog was his dog and any body
had killed him, he should want $50
damages-could not say bu, what a
whole kennel Of dogs might be raised
for $50. Was not in the dog line
himself-could not say that defendant
killed plaintiff dog-could only swear
that he cut the dog in two with one of
Collins axes. such as Isaac Hodges
sells. Cuold not say on his oath that
the dog died-dog appeared in good
spirits aiierwards-was wagging his
tail-does not think the dog could be
Of any further use as a dog-don't
know whether surgery could cure such
. hurt or not---is no surgeon--never
told plaintiff that fractional dogs were
as good as any-never said the dog
could be welded never since this suit
have talked with plaintiff about the
dog any more than to sympathize
like"
Another witness testified that the
dogs moral character was as good as
the general run-that plaintiff consid-
cred him n useful dog-nevcr heard
tell OF his gallantrics; was good clev-
er chunk Of a dog-was good for cat
tie and horses-would fasten on hog
ear like four legged vise-thought
he nigh. have been good dog for old
man Graham in the wolf scalp line
should Judge the dog might have soon
earned $50 in wolf scalps don't know
as the dog ever stole any of old MINI
rods wolf scalps-don't know the val
ue Of dogs-knew Mitchell TO have a
$50 dog thought plaintiffs dog was
bigger. fatter, better built, and worth
more than Mitchell's dog don't know
what defendants counsel means by
asking il dog was taken s'damage feas-
anti or pheasant--had hearn plaintiff
say though, that he was death on prai-
rie chick. --(Here counsel Directing to
hearsay testimony Of plaintiff, after
warm argument the court rejected it
as improper and witnesses were next
called for DEFENDANT
The next witness after examination
on his voir dire, being sworn. in chief,
ssid-he could say nothing in favor OF
the dog-did not believe any man
could slice such dog through with a
a narrow b;tted axe-thought delen-
dant would have sarved him right il
he had killed him-ihought such dogs
were worth as much minced as ,chote
he was a sad dog: but more mad