The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1865-01-21
CuriOsities of the REPORTS.

SuTAOsltleS Oh tnc ltepOftSs
, The Reports of the Supreme Court of Ne
York are distinguished by the number of in
portant cases which come before them; ne
in instance, frequently, and involving grea
principles incapable of satisfactory solutio
by inferior tribunals. The fact of which W
speak is due probably to the immense an
various commerce, the diverse pursuits an
the exaggerated tastes ofthe million ofpeopl
who throng its splendid metropolis. Man
cases in the New York Reports, therefore
are Leading Case, for our whole country
and we may say for England, hardly less thai
for ourselves. In a tribual where all grea
questions are at once so ably, so solemnly,
and so satisfactorily disposed of, it might b,
| difficult to give pre-eminence to one particu
lar class of decisions above another. Neithe
do We mean to draw comparisons, prov
| erbially, 'odious." After very carefu
| study of all the New York Reports, however
| we are inclined to say, that nowhere do theil
great judges appear to greater advantage
either for force of intellect, for careful re
search and consideration as to precedents, OIL
for exquisite purity of style, than in the de-
partment of Dog Law. This branch Of Judi
cial science would almost seem to have been
made especially of their Supreme Court
We gave not long since an interesting case,
in Mistress Hubbard's poor dog (Wilbur v
Hubbard, Is Barbour, 3O5). Another lead
ing decision NAV be seen in Wheeler V. Brant
% Barbour, 3j4 and another, hardly less
fine, in Fairchild V. Bentley etal., 40 id. HI.
This branch of law is of such practical, and
We NAV add Of such growing Importance, that
we shall of course give each and every one Of
these decisions to our readers in due time.
In the mean season. we cannot withhold
from them one which may be regarded by
distinction. we think, rs the leading dog case
Cf that Commonwealth. and as such worthy
of consideration by the Mes5rs. Johnson, as q
fit decision for incorporation int" the ne kt
edition Of The American Leading Cases
Assuredv i affords :, beautiful Illustration Of
the remark of Mr.. \. McG., of New York,
made in a communication to the Intelligen
GER and published March 18th ultimo, that
.'the law is solemn study. not to be made
business of pleasantly and jokes 1t is from
22d Barbour, sos, and in substance thus:
WILEY Y. SLATER.
If owners Of dogs, whether valuable or not
suffer then, To visit others OF their species,
particularly il they 90 unlimited, they
must be content to have them put up
with dog fare, and that their reception
anu treatment Sudii De Hp> Ilttbtt Uf
inhosptable. according 10 the nature of
the particular mood and temper, at the
time. Of the dog visited. The couriesies
and hos spitaliiie, of dog life cannot well
be regulated by the judicial tribunals Of
the land.
On the question as to the cause Of dogs
death, As er.3r whether he have died by
ordinary visitation of Divine Providence
or whether death have supcrvened from
consequence, Of a dog fight, or happened
from the do.'s being shot in the BRAIN
bv ball from one Of Mr.. Sharpe's rifles.
the Judgment Of q New York Nstice Of
the Peace j. uconclusivc the testimony
being doubtful h.Yuis tioneis post
mortsp crHes seem, in such cases, to
belong particularly to such justices.
After 4 dog fight. ia all respects 'dog-like
and fair" aad ending fatally, in the
death Of one O.; the dogs cOmbatant, the
owner of The defunct dog is entitled 10
his skin; the court disapproving the
doctrine tLat such skin belongs las .
trophy" TO the victorious dog.
Mr.. Wiley. Of the beautiful county Of Onei-
de-. in New York State. was in possession of
dog His neighbor. Mr.. Slater, was in pos
session Of another. Thus far there was moth
ing on the part Of either plaintiff or defend
ant to which any one could properly object,
Mrs Hubbard had been owner Ot a dog, and
Tobit, a we read in the ApUcrypha, was ;he
posses.or Of the same kind OF property. In
the poSsessiouI Iof a dog, absractly considered
the case was admit ted u be free OF difficulty.
Mr.. Slater dog. however, on one occasion
feeling rs dogs often DO in social mood
We all understand what a social moods is
saw fit to make a visit to Mr.. Wileys dog, qn
which occasion of ciyility dog fight ensucd.
How it occurred that an intercourse begun
under such promising auspices should end 50
fel:citousy did not appear. Ia fact, II vas
one Of the rsmarkable features Of this case,
that every circumstance which had led 10 the
melancholy outbreak was involved in pro
found mv,.erv. But the fact that dog fight
had taken place was fully admitted on both
sides. According to these a'ic9ata IN the
case. I'VE presume our readers know the
meaning of "aiiegata,') according TO the
aileyata, we say, Mr.. Slater's dog bit, manned
and greatly I'M jured Mr.. Wiley's dog. ltwas
further set forth among the said aitcgata, that
Mr.. Slater himself had become a party to the
dog fight, and had struck, kicked, Jammed
and injured Mr.. Wiley's dog, so that he
the said dog of Mr.. Wiley-died. Damage
500.
The case was heard in due form before
Justice Of the said beautiful county of Oneida;
and the Justice. after such proceeding as he
saw fit, gave Judgment against Mr.. Slater for
80 damages, and 81 cost. From this judg-
ment there was of course AN appeal.
In the Supreme Court it appeared that the
proJata were not quite so large as the alieya-
ia; little want Of adjustment not uncom-
mon in certain classes of suits. We need
not enlarge, we presume, on An incident SO
frequent il courts of justice, or on that an
cient rule which requirs that the aIiegata pro
bata should correspond.
1T was admitted, indeed, that MIR Wiley's
dog was at home when the melancholy dis
turbance took place, and that Mr.. Slater's
dog had come over to him-or tier: for tie
sex, which it appears to US ought to have ap
peared on record or in proof, was not SO much
as alluded TO except in the opinion OF the
court, where the matter of jealousy is limited
at But whether Mr.. Wiley's dog had died
of the injuries which he had received on the
occasion when, according to our ideas, a
prima tdcie judgment would say that hospit-
ahty and good manners had been grossly
outraged or whether death had happened
after the ordinary visitation Of dogs, this was
not SO positively clear. Seventeen of the
medical dog Faculty-as we learn from a
member OF the New York bar, (Dr Ba-bour's
report emitting essential facts and all the ar
guments) were summoned seven on one
side and ten on the other. Twelve of the
said Dog Faculty had assisted at the post
mortem, which from the interest of the case
was conducted with more than common sol
emuitv The colon of the unfortunate de-