The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1866-11-02
8ifhn,ond 4ispatrh.
FR1DAY..........NovEMBER 2, 1866.
Prom the La Crosse fWis.) Democrat.
ChieksAs1usticei In La aCr0Sse-"BPick'
ROuueroy In q 0uft,


= Monday afternoon there came of before
Police Judge Hubbard, in this city, an
other law suit, the particulars Of which are
. follows:
Reinhardt Hendricks on the 18th of Sep
.tember brought suit against Brick I"
Pomeroy to recover pay for two roosters
shot by the defendant with revolver, the
chickens belonging to the plaintiff, to the
value Of fifty cents each. Through the
kindness Of the judge, the case has been
adjourned from week to week till the
return of the defendant from an elec-
tioneering tour of Indiana. This morning
the case came off, ex-Mayor Hon. James /.
Lyndes being the counsel for the prssecu-
ton, the defendant appearing in his own
defence.
The courtroom was crowded; for the
idea of trying an editor for stealing or
shooting chickens was novelty. The
plaintiff brought In his bill; swore to its
correctness; testified that hs owned
the chickens; that they we're raised by .
hen belonging to him that he saw the de-
fendant shoot them; that he had repeat
edly asked the defendant to settle for
them and failing to get pay or satisfaction,
he was compelled to bring suit, and asked
for Judgment of one dollar and costs.
The defendant admitted shooting the
chickens, and proved by four reliable wit
nesses the following facts:
In April, 1866, the defendant owned o
fast-running trick mare, Kitty" which
animal was kept in stable hired by him,
and cared for by one of his employees.
Through little hole in the barn or stable
the plaintiffs hens would fly in and eat
oats intended for the mare Kitty" and
on the approach of any one, would fly out.
In an old barrel, in the stable, one of the
hens, a black one, made her nest-laid
thirteen eggs therein, and proceeded to
raise family. When the hen got ready
to set, the defendant instructed the boy
who took care of his mare to go down
town, purchase thirteen eggs of j. W. Ro-
binson & Co., grocers, and put them in the
nest, first removing the other eggs. The
boy did so, as was proved. He then per-
sonally drove the hen out Of the stable a
dozen times or more he tried to make her
leave; she would not, but proceeded to
incubate his eggs, duly bought and paid
for, without his consent, leave or license,
his agents to have her vacate his premises.
And farther, when the hen had hatched his
eggs she ran away with his chickens, eleven
in number, two eggs not producing chick
ems. To her services he brought an offset,
the use of the stable and board bill in the
shape of oats; he charged her with the
two eggs she spoiled, and demanded judg-
ment for the balance of the flock, nine in
number, at fifty cents each. And besides,
he proved that the chickens did not belong
to that hen, as she was black, while the
chickens were red or speckled. Hen
bricks has sued all his neighbors for some
little, trihing matter half dozen times
each during the past two years. After q
patient hearing, the Judge decided that
there was no cause Of action, and that the
defendant was entitled to the other nine
chickens, and the plaintiff must pay the
costs of the suit, amounting to sl7.37R.