Wisconsin herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1846-1849, 1847-04-17
LANCASTER SATURDAY, APRIL II, ls47

abated, that is, taken away or removed
by the party aggrieved thereby, so he
commits not riot in doing oft" Now,
gentlemen, have they shown that my
client was guilty Of any riot in re-
moving this nuisance? If he had call
ed the ncighbors together and hunted
the dog with stones and Clubs and
lbrick bats, it might have looked riot
Ious; but he did the thing quietly and
alone, if at all. Bat lastly, the dog
was of no value. The common law
abhors the dog. 1t brands dogs with
contempt; it affords them no shelter or
protection, unless each dog can prove
on trial, that he is deserving of pro-
lection for his good conduct. All
dogs therefore are not born with equal
and unalienable rights; nor any rights
at all. They have no character. Hence
the numerous tariffs and taxes on dogs,
amounting, in some places, TO an actu-
al embargo. The law says they have
no intrinsic vaue-that they are base
property, and that it is no crime to
steal doc; pray what crime is there
then, in dividing dog with an axe?
II quote again from Blackstone, book
/ a, p. 1885, s'As to those animals which
do not serve for food and which there
fore the law holds to have no intrinsic
ualue, as dogs of all sorts, &c. though
a man may have base property there
in, &C., yet they are not Of such esti-
nation as that the crime Of stealing
them amounts to larcenyv Now has
the plaintiff taken his dog out Of the
common law, so as to show that he is
worth more than the general run of
dogs? No!far from it. The proof is
rather that he was Of as much. value
for sausages as for any thing; and the
common law expressly declares that
he could be of no value for that pur-
pose. Believing now that you under
stand the whole case; | leave you now.
4 gentlemen of the jury, surrender
you, dogged and aoorried as know
you are, TO the tender mercies Of the
opposite counsel.
4 The counsel for the plaintiff then
closed as follows:
/ Gentlemen--Cur fecisti hoe? is an
inquiry very proper to put to the learn
ed gentleman who is just seated
Why, why should he thus deal in
sophistry and CANNON? Why torture
the truth? Why distort facts? Why
pervert the law and evidences? Why
bark himself hoarse in defending the
foul murder Of dog as meek, as
true, as trusty dog as ever raised =
howl or a hind leg? Oh, perversion
Of intellect! Oh, prostitution Of tai
ent TO purposes most base and ignoblel
He FIRST affects to believe that the dog
was not killed! Not killed? No! he
says that is not proved; it is only
proved that the dog was cut apart in
the middle! And he would have you
believe that the tail trotted off one
way and the head the other way
This is, truly, a new rule for the null
duplication of dogs: and if correct, OIL
have only to chop dog fine enough
and you will make him 0nanipresenI
Again he says, if the dog aoas cut in
two, he was not damaged. Why not?
what would he be good for. allowing
he lived3 IA thing impossible!) We
have all heard Of noUeks in two parts;
but who ever before, heard af dog in
two partsl You may fancy dog di-
unfinished, condensed, abridged, as it
we're, from quarto to octave; but when
you divide, the unity ceases; there is
an end of the thing, or rather four or
five ends; and the dog, as dog, is no
longer in esse, and has no longer the
functions, qualities and properties Of a
dog. hold it to be sound PROPOSE
ton in physics or metaphysics, that the
parts Of thing, disunited. do not con-
stilute the thing ITSELF Unity is
wanting. For instance, if my client
had brought an action of trover for his
dog, instead Of trespass, could the de-
fendsn. .jusfig by proving that he had
returned all the parts of the dog 10
the plaintiff, in the form of sausages?
1t is for damage done N destroying
the dogs canine existence and ca
nine qualities, the essential properties
and requisites of :his particular dog,
that my client has sued.
! Again, you are told that the dog
was killed damage feasant;' that Is.
doing damage; and that in killing
him, the defendant was lawfully a
batting nuisance. Pray was it not
damage fessant' that defendants hor-
80 .Ynrn IL .Iin..a-sa LIZ L. a -