Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1857-07-24
- gf
A GOOSE CASE.
-. -

oooH ultcx tAib tIiai u Whb oibtiu- :
guished by being employed in one of
the most interesting, If not important
cases that ever occurred in that coun-
ty. 1t was an action for slanderous
words spoken charging the plaintiffs
wife with stealing the goose Of the
defendants wife. The parties were
highly respectable. The neighbor-
hood was about equally divided, and
separated into classes, holding no in
tercourse with each other. The dec
laration charged that in consequence
Of the SANDER the neighbors had re-
fused to haveany intercourse whatev-
er with the wife ofthe plaintiff. Dam
ages $4,000. The case was called
Col. Wallace, General oble, and Gen.
eral McKinny for the plaintiff; Will
lam r. Morris and myself for the de-
iendant. Pleas mot guilty and 'justi-
fication.' Witnesses on separate sides
of the court room, few to prove the
words: some as to the good character
Of the parties, which nobody disput-
ed. But the most Of the witnesses
were females, to prove the identity of
the goose in question, as that seemed
to be the great point in the case. The
law was clear. The speaking Of the
words was not denied before the jury.
But who was the owner Of the goose?
1t soon became evident that the case
must turn upon that question, and
the utmost tact anu ingenuity were
displayed by the attorneys, with ma
ny side-bar remarks, as the trial pro-
gressed. The plaintiff proved by q
host Of witnessed that he was the ow-
ner of the goose-in fact thatshe was
hatched his. We proved that the
goose was ours-that we owned her
mother and her grandmother, that
thcy were oil white, and had o pecu.
liar propensity to take to the water
as soon as they were out Of the shell.
The case seemed 10 be about balanced.
Court adjourned for dinner with the
remark Of the plaintiff q counsel that
they had but one witness to examine
rebutting. Court met-the plaintiffs
called their witness, q very respecta.
Bile looking lady Of some seventy years.
She took tho stand, all eyes were up
on her, for she seemed like tho Presi-
dentof the Senate about to give the
casting vote upon tie Of that body.
Plaintiffs counsel: Madam, how
long have you been acquainted with
geese, and do you know who owns
the goose In question:" II was q bold
question and was conclusive to our
minds that the counsel knew before
they put the question what the an
swer would DO. We felt tha. all must
depend upon that answer. The wit
ness raised her "specks" and rubbed
the glasses with her hands, and In O
strong firm voice answered.: II have
been moro than sixty years scquaint.
cd with goose, and know that this
goose belongs TO tho plaintiffs wifc."
This was direct and positive, and the
counsel for plaintiff rested. "Take
the witness, says Col. Wallace, the
leading counsel, triumphantly. Now
cAme tho trying question on our part.
Should we ask single cross question:
/ thought not, but was ovsrruled by
my asSociatss, and the fatal question
was put--"How do you know that
that particular goose belongs to tho
wife Of the plaintiff Because she
was . white goose, and paced. ! own
Cd her grcatgrsndmoth otherand sAs pao-
cd, and 90 did ell that brsed.p This
was conclusive; no moro questions
were asked. The case was argued st
great length, and with unusual ability,
especially on the pIds, Of The dstsn.
dssA but - were uaahls y IT ovr