The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-11-27
A Tale OF Two Dogs-Strar$o Law
80 suit--A Rich Document
49,, ~, ,,,,,a,i Gazette. ]

Co,runUs. O.. November l2.-hoout It'e
.,,,n;nst ehinn that has occurred 10 Column
hrs for long time is the suit OF Josepn
W o;,er hv his next friend, Joseph Matt, os.
Nathaniel Merton, TO recover Damages III
, sS i,0, because, rs alleged, Merion's dog oi'
no n,s;ntifT. November Is, 1872.
Al, The parties to the suit are well known
,,crc and prominent legal talent tIudgc
Rnuk;n and H. J. WylIe for pla!ntli, ana
Lorenzo English and Judge Baldwin LOT ue.
f,ndant) is employed on both sldes. tne
case came on for bearing this afternoon uc-
fore Judge Green. and was opened IA we
presence of large crowd of amused spec
The pc,ilion Of the plaintiff sets fortlrtne
facts in ordinary legal language, out inc ae,
fendan.'s answer is more ambitious, ana
proceed. in Tie following vein OF drolleFs
and richness: -,.e
nDefendan; says that on the said 26th Gay
al November, 1872, aud for some time prior
thereto, his daughter was the owner Of q
small dog about ten inches in height, welgn'
ing from fifteen to twenty pounds, olach,
aud-tan in color, and of gentle, ptayiu,
disposi,ior, such US are generally fouod anu
kept by children and younger nleincefs =. :
family as pet or playthng. 1his uos msS
in the habit Of following hiH ana .o1ne'
members OF his family, rs. such oogs seue-
rally do often, about the city ana ilota
his residence, which is to say one nou'
drcd wards from the grocery store re-
ferred to in the petition, 10 the sa'o stols'
and Crcouentlv, at his said dogs own volt
tion. to 60 back and forth from The sald resi-
dence TO said store, and about the vicinity
thereof behaving himself in very quiet ana
doc;Ie manner toward all mankind. flain-
tifl's mex, friend, Joseph Matt, who Is pam
rn's brother.in.!aw, and with whom plain
tG lives. has drug store 0:agonallv across
the street from aforesaid grocery store, say
one hundred and twenty-five feet distant,
aad was at that time and prior thereto the
owner or possessor of dog OF similar spe-
cies. perhaps little larger in size. These
two dogs had formed an acquaintance WIN
each other, which, by some means, had iea
tos sor, Of emulation Of rivalry between them
of such nature as TO produce continuous
and eyerrcnewed attempt OIL the part OF
either when they met to gain The superiority
each over the other, and as 1t never was
decisiyely determined which was the victor,
whenever they saw or approached eacn otber
the contest always commenced afresh. tacn
CD bis own premises was eager TOT the tray
and was Inviucibie, but each on the premi"
.es of the other WAS timid, peaceful, and
ready 10 retire; and when, in the course
Of duty or pleasure, one PASSED near the
Goulicile of the other, he FASTENED TO
escape with dropping ears and Lowry tail,
while the other pursued with boldneSs and
courage until the domicile OF the other was
nered, when, turning at bay, the scene
charged and the pursuer became the pur-
sued. These raids and conflicts, usu-
hlly harmless, because OF the lnSlg-
nifcance Of the comtatants, attracted Tue
notice Of various parties, and especially
Of the respective persons and parties py
whom said dogs were owned or Kept, ana as
their modes of battles and tournaments, al,
tacks and retreats, were ludlcrous anu
afforded amusement, were encouraged ps
said PARTIES. The said dogs seemed to be
aware Of the interest they excited, ana while
thus contendiDg for their respective homes,
their affairs, and their fresides" marked
well and noted each their opponents, hackers
and allies, and seemed to expect when
either appeared that their champion was
near, and all expected the dog 10 do bis duty
il the approaching conflict. Defendant Is
unable TO state how this logged sentiment
was formed, but he believes it to have existed,
IS 1t was distinctly demonstrated 10 their
actions. Plaintiff and his next friend on
their part did encourage and incite
their dog when opportunity offered, the
dog mentioned i'll tue petition, and
the aforementioned dog thereby seemed TO
consider plaintiff as Offering battle with the
piunuI's next friends dog whenever PLAIN.
iii approached him, and when this occurred
ncar plaintiffs next friends drug store (as
olten,imes he did open tue door OF said store
aud luclte said dog to attack the dog IN
petition mentioned when passing there
the deg ID petition mentioned would,
as before mentioned, avoid the conflict,
but when occurring at Sald grocery store,
or distance from said drug store.
said dog was always ready and anxious
for light, waiting and expecting hostile
demonstrations OF plaintiff and bis next
friends dog: and therefore 1t occurred
on or about the said November 70, 1872,
when the eaid plaintiff came into
the said grocery store, the dog in petition
mentioned, heretofore quiet, harmless, and
gentle toward all others, discerning him
alone, and Fastening to acquit himself as
usual toward his rival, offered the usual
gage Of combat; but not seeing or discern
.ng, IS expected, the next friends dog in the
lists, approached the plaintiff, and to attract
ms attention merely, and not in violence or
anger, but gently and amiabiy, laid his mouth
upon the plaintiffs outer garments as ii in
canine language to say, Here am; where's
Your dog:' and in so doing, defendant said
said dog did not injure plaintiff, az he be-
Heye5.'
Or COURSE He WoULD.-A little bit Of
woman was on the platform OF the Central