The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1867-03-29

animal would bite, drove him away
with acane. The dog, however, returned,
and again commenced playing with the
German, and by whining and other
movements the German concluded that
the dog would do him harm. lie ac-
cordingly struck him on the head, when
the dog left his unkind acquaintance,
and approaching the edge of the wharf
gave one plaintive howl and then sprang
into the water, and after short strug-
gle sank to the bottom. The above was
witnessed by several respectable gentle
men who are considerably puzzled to
know what induced Carlo to commit
suicide.-,Sept. 2s.
GENERAL SEssIoNs.-Friday, Sept.
9.-Before A. d. Russell, Esq, City
Judge, &c.-Are Dogs Property ?-M re
the People VS.. Dennis Campbell. This
case came up this morning, and is of
great interest to the owners of that pop
ular animal, the dog. In the March
term of this Court, Dennis Campbell
was indicted for stealing valuable New
foundland dog worth $50, the property
of Gerard S. Underhill.
There was not much doubt that Den
mis- had taken the Newfoundland, but
he, having gone to a gentleman learned
in the law, was informed that dogs were
not property,and that "prigging" them
was no offence; so Dennis instructed
his legal adviser to put in demurrer.
That instrument was argued before the
Court, and this morning the Judge de-
livered long, and of course elaborate
opinion upon the question, care dogs
property" His Honor having made
researches into the earliest archives of
the common law of England, was of
opinion that in the good old times dogs
were not property, but by the march of
intellect, their condition had been i'm
proved until a law had been passed by
the State Legislature of New y ork for
the protection of domestic animals.
This act his Honor thought included the
dog as domestic animal, and having
0o uCNt tIlN SllOulNi Z
Judgment for the people on the demur-
rer, and the defendant must plead gull
ty or not guilty to the Indictment.
a Dog CASE IN CoURT.-Mr. Rogers
Prosecutes Mr.. Garharty for Stealing
The three justices who preside in Special
Sessions We're largely occupied, a few
mornings since, in hearing and deter
mining the merits of a complicated dog
case, in which James Rogers, of Thirty
sixth street, appeared against Michael
Garharty, on a charge of larceny.
Mr.. Rogers sets forth that about six
months ago Patrick Mccarthy, acting
as his agent, purchased of Garharty the
brutes in question, Il 'female dog" and
puppy, for $40; that the old brute alone
was worth $40, and that the reason the
prisoner sold out so cheap was that he
then intended to return to Ireland
Furthermore, that about six weeks age
Garharty, assisted by three men, stole
the animal he had sold, while Roger,
and the dog were in the street, thus Sc
curing both the price money and the
brute. Mr.. Rogers, deeming this an un
fair proceeding, prosecuted for theft.
Having sworn to these facts in Court
he brought forward Patrick Mccarthy
a retired butcher, who testified that he
bought the animals in dispute for Mr.
Rogers, and paid 81 70 for the two, anC
that Garharty treated in the bargain
Mr.. Spencer, the prisoners counsel, Sc
up the defence that the young brute onl,
was sold, and that the maternal brute
was lent only fora short time that ROg
crs refused to give herup, and that Gar
harty only took his own dog, seizing he
in the street. Mr.. Mccarthy was there
/ fore subjected to Il searching cross-eXam
inatiOn on this point, but he testified
with great dcliberation, that he pur
chased both. lie asserted that he knew
nothing of the value of dogs, and tina
he had never bought any in his life; bu
/ he knew enough to know that the pup
py alone was not worth 81 -. He sub
sequently testified that he had sold 81,
or seven dogs himself; whereupon Jus
tice Brownell propoundcd the followln!
query:
"You say, Mr.. Mccarthy, that yo
never bought dog in your life, but tina
you have sold six or seven. Now | wan
to know where you got those dogs go
sold ?"
This question, Which Mr., Spencer dc
clared an orgumentum dd homineD
raised a great laughi in Court and evident
ly disturbed Mr.. M'Carthy, although h
did not reply.
The prosecution rested with Mr.. NJ
Carthy's testimony, and the defence pre-
duccd Mr.. FLllums, who testified thi
Mccarthy and he took drink in bas,
ment, and mccarthy told him he onl
bought the puppy, and that Rogers WI
an old thief. Furthermore, that MiCa
thy offered to gowith Garharty and hel
get the dog, and actually did go in con
pany with Garharty and himself, an
was present when Garharty took Il
: dog. 1t was further proven for the d
fence that the prisoner was Il man +.
good character, and the Court discharge
= him. lie left amid the congratulatio
| of his friends. Mr., Rogers, with
| gloomy and detected countenance, c
1 pressed a determination to put hi
) through"
: SAGACITN OF \ DOG.-A large Ne
, foundland dog, that may be seen Al
day at No. Argyle street, Glasgo
c has added one more Instance the MAJ
: on record of the extraordinary sagaci