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


horses for sprain or poll-evil-never
knew the cog to get drunk, alter
some discussion between counsel as
to irrelevancy of testimony, witness
proceeded.).s / don't consider that
the dog was worth one continental
there the court cautioned witness not
TO use profane languagc) wild cat bank
note. r.
The next witness said he was ply
sician and surgeon-knew but little of
the anatomy of dogs-could only rea-
son by analogy, from man to dog-he
gave it as his professional opinion that
in the canine species as we'll as hu-
man, if she spinal marrow were Sc
gregated, the dorsal integuments sew
cred, and all the carriages, bones liga-
ments and membranes that connect
the two extremes of the frame, were
sundered and disrupted,a las for instance.
by a blow from the bit of an axe, a
suspension Of the operations OF the
artcrial system and in fact of the func-
ton Of life, might ensue. Cannot say
it would inevitably be fatal-does not
know how etficacious prompt surgical
assistance might prove-knows dog
will bear almost anything-has often
heard that cats have nine lives-don't
know from the anatomical structure of
dogs, why dogs should not have as
man9 lives; has seen two legged dogs
has seen dogs cut in two that lived
has seen dogs cut in two in the mid
die that lived; but they were cut in
two in about the middle of their tails
(much laughter) lin canine surgery !
suppose that would be called curtail-
ing-fecls reluctant to give any deci.
dcd opinion-a divided dog might be
better than a whole one for some pur-
poses-half Of bad dog is better than
the whole-of evils | would choose
the least. Plaintiffs attorneys dog,
on that principle is the most valuable
dog know Of. only giva my opin-
Iion-do not wish to dogmatize.
i Plaintiffs attorney waived the priv
ilege Of opening the argument; where
upon defendants attorney spoke as fol-
! lows:
Gentlemen Of the Jury:
My speech, shall as much rs posi-
BILE cuyfait will at once uncover,
bark forward, and hunt down the fc-
tons and fallacies upon which the
plaintiff relies for verdict. will
take track through the turnings and
doublings, while the dew Of testimony
yet lies fresh and strong upon your
memories. LIST. then, the dog was not
killed. Cd. The dog was not damag-
ed. Sd. If defendant killed the dog,
he killed him 'sdamage fcasant" and
was therefore justifiable. 4th. The
dog was Of no value. Was the dog
killed.? Of this there is no certainty
there is barely probability. One
witness says the dog was bisected with
a single blow of narrow bitted axe.
How improbable. What? Slice dog
of that size in two with one blow. like
a snow ball? Another witness says it
would be impossible to do it. Com
mon sense will teach you the impossi-
bility. unless there ,oas a .taa,o an the
dog; in which case he must have been
already more worthless Than broken
cast iron fre-dog, because he coaid not
be cas-: over. Ii the dog came in two
so easy it might have been an accident;
i. e.: he might have run against the
poll of the axe himself and done it,
Now suppose for argument sake,
1 (which we deny!) that the dog was
severed? lie was not killed as we
know of. The plaintiff declares for
killing the dog, not for dividing him.
1t will no doubt be gravely contended
that the dog must necessarily have died
but why leave so important fact for
inferencel All fair presumptions are
that the dog is now living-the two
parts perhaps, in state of divorce
nay it is fair to suppose that the dog
is not only living, but reformed in tenn
per. Neither dead dog nor sad
dog ways his tail. For anything that
appears, dog in detail is as good as a
dog IN the aggregate. IL dog repre-
sents certain value, why arc not two
half dogs, like two half dollars, equal
10 whole one? gain, if defendant
bisected the dog. he had right to do
so; for the dog was "dsmage feasaSt,"
II. G.: biting defendants horses, and
| the defendant was thereby. only aba
1 ting a nuisance as he had perfect
] right 10 do. Iqaote from Blackstone,
! Vol. 8, p. 6. "At present shall only