The Lancaster gazette. (Lancaster, Ohio) 1846-1852, 1847-10-15

fairly Mr.. Pendergasti / have never
found Peters a very unre asonable man.
1sent him a bill for the damage done
Before seeing himl'
Certainly, had no wish TO see him
about the matter. / felt too much pro,
voked at his allowing a pair of unruly OK
ento forage about at night. He ought to
have known that they would do damage
somewhere. ,
Perhaps he did not knowthey wereout.
He ought to have known it then. If
he shouldn't, how should II
i think it would have been much bet
terif you had seen Peters before you
commenced a suit, | am certain he would
have done what was right
NC he'll
Hasn't he always borne the character
of an upright mani Such Ihaye always
found him.
You never know a man until you try
and prove him. / understand Thomas
Peters now, very well, and he will under
stand me, too. | am thinking before we
are done with each other. shouldn't
have called in the law to aid in settling
this matter, if he hadn't sent me an insul,
ting message, as we'll as refuse to pay the
BILL
'Andyou are determined to go on with
the matterP
Certainly; | am not the man to look
back and hesitate after | have once taker
my course. His oxen destroyed my corr
and he refused to pay the damage. Ism
that a plain case! | think it is.
i am sure it would be betterif yol
would see MI. Peters, and talk over the
case with him before going any further.
And get insulted for my pains. No
no; | have too much respectfor myselftt
run the risk of an Insult to my face, from
a man who sends me an insulting repl,
TO a just demand
Finding he could do nothing with Pen
dergast, Mr.. Goodyear called upon MI
Peters. He found him quite as muchi in
censed as the other, and alleging that h,
was perfectly satisfied that Peudergast'
old rickety fence must have been broker
down, or his oxen would never hav,
made their way into the cornfeld. H,
had never known them to break into an,
Enclosure, and did not believe they hadil
this instance. AS to their having don,
ten dollars worth of damage, that wa
prepostetous. Ten cents worth of see,
corn would euew the hills, and that par
of the crop would be only two or tire
weeks later than the other, and be full
matured before frost. As to law, h
could have that to his hearts content
Before he was done, he would find tina
law could be used by man as well a
another
MIR. Goodyear demonstrated agains
this retaliatory spirit, but it was of n
use. The course pursued towards hir
had thrown Peters into a violent passion
and he could neither hear nor see reason
When the trial came on, the two me
stood confronting each other, scowlin
and %muttering. Pendergast made a plai
statement of his case, which seemed We
ry clearte the magistrate. He had wi
nesses to swear that they had seen tn
oxen of Peters in his corn-6eld, and ha
helped them to drive him out. To thi;
Peters opposed the statement, that tt
fences of his neighbor were shameful
out ofrepair; and produced a witness wi
swore that in passing the field of Pende
CAST onthe day previous to the damas
being done, he noticed a rail out Of Il
pannelthrough which the oxenhadbroke
This was to Pendergast unexpectt
testimony, and he met it with a hasty d
NAL.
, Then you mean said the magistrat
I with some sternn ess, TO charge the w
, ness with perjury
:. oh mono, not that; but he must
/ mistaken
: But | have sworn | saw it, said Il
q witness with a flushed face, and a fir
! voice.
"A pair of oxen could not getin throut
, a fence in which only one rail was OF
urged Pendergast, turning to the mag
a trate.
But to leave a small opening in a fen
is only to induce an animal to make
larger one, especially if within the enc
sureihere is anything to tempthis app
tite. If a mans fences are not who.
G who has he to blame but himself2 Ifthr
n rails are enough for a fence, why do I,
# have four and sometimes fyel Or W
do we have fences atall?' said Peters.
The magistrate did not see the case
IS clear now, by any means. In fact he f
rather puzzled BY it. There has been
}, trespass, bat who was most to blame
a. it was hard to tell. If two or three ia
al had been out of the fence. or none at
the case would have been clear enou
d for either the defendant or plaintiff.
is But the one rail puzzled him. An
a could not get through a fence with OF
st one rail out; but if the fence had be
n whole, there would have been no II
pass. Pendergast was TO blame for
ID keeping his fence in order, and Pet
lie was to blame for letting his oxen /
le loose. After taking a day to consider
bout the matter, he concluded to dish
IN the case by requiring Peters to pay {
Ell thus dividing the matter between
he two litigants-the one suffering the
a of the corn, aud the other bearingthe {
O. prosec ution.
ne Ofcourse, this decision satisfied ne