The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1867-07-06

plevined il and has had il since that time:--t.
The right of property was tried and the jury
decided that it was Shaughnessy's colt.
According to Shaughnessy's claim, the
colt was four years old last spring.
/ The ,Dimicks claim that the colt was rsis.
ed in their family; that it was sired BY o.:
J. Dimick's stallion, ''Paddy Whack," and
foaled from the Conway mare, in the spring
of 1864; that it was three years old last.
spring; that, when the colt was some or 8
months old Mr.. L. d. Dimick bought it of
Mrs. Conway's boy; that in the spring of
1855 he branded it I'll. D." and gave it to
his little grandson, "Lute," son of O. j.
Dimick; that during the spring and summer
of 1865 the colt run on the prairie with 9TH
er colts, between this city and Rock River;
that in the fall of 1865 it was taken up by
L. D. Dimick and delivered to o. j. Dimick,
to keep for his boy; that, about two weeks
afterwards, it got away, was traced to Bra
sier's lane, on the Camden Road, and there
the track was lost; that, in the spring OF
1866, 0. J. Dimick advertised the colt, offer
ing $25, reward for its return; that 3 differ
emit colts were brought to him, neither of
which was the right one; that, in July 1866,
Henry Schroeder informed him of a colt in
his flock answering to the description of
Dimick's colt; that o. ]. Dimick went on
the bluff with him, found the flock of colts
and identified this colt as the one belonging
to his boy, that he took up the colt and
placed it in the pasture near the lime kilns !;
that, some months after that the legal con-
troversy commenced, the result of which the
public has been informed
The principal points of controversy were
| the age of the colt and the brand. If the
| colt is Shaughnessy's it will be years old
ly years old. Good horse-men differ very
much in regard to the mouth, some claiming
that the upper jaw shows 4 years old and the
| under jaw 3years old. 1t is conceded, we
believe, that at 5 years old a colt always has
a. fall mouth and, next spring, there can be
little doubt that the age of the colt will be
ascertained beyond dispute, and this will
practically, settle the question as to who was
| the rightful owner of the colt.
AS to the brand, Dimick claims that he
proved its existence upon the colt from thu
day he found it among Schreder's colts t.
the final trial. Witnesses, however, differed
materially in regard to the brand as we'll a
to the age of the colt; some could see th'
brand, while others could not; SO also SOM
could see three year old mouth and some
four year old. There were other points o
dispute, such as scars, marks general appear
ance, &C., but the age and brand were thu
principal points of controversy. So con
| fident is Mr.. Dimick that the colt is the on
given to his boy by Mr.. L. D. Dimick, tina
he offers to deposite $500 against an equa
amount, and send the colt to Chicago an
let his age be decided by experienced vetel
mary surgeons.
The case is one which has give rise t
| considerable i'll feeling and good deal c
hard swearing-but who is right or who
! wrong we do not know and it is not for us t
judge. OF one thing, however, there is n
doubt, viz: Mr.. Dimick and Nj. Shaughne.
I! sy are both perfectly honest and sincere i
believing the colt to be theirs. The JURY
endeavoring to do right, and acting upo
the'evidence, as they understood it, gave tn
colt to Shaughnessy. And Mr.. L. D. Din
lex, believing the colt to be the one he CAV
0. Us boy, has purchased it of Dir. Shaugl
messy and given it to the boy-the secon
time, as he says. The price paid was som
| seventy odd dollars-a good deal more thai
the value of the colt. The Dimicks are col
ident that, as the colt gets age and is dt
veloped, and its mouth comes to maturity
and it is compared with the Conway mar,
every one will be convinced that it was
three year old, last spring, and was reall
Dimick's colt.
We pretend to no judgment in the matter
believing both parties honest, and both pa
ties liable to be mistaken.