The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-16
A CASE OF CANNIBALISM.

James BurKe and James Mclaughlin were In an
uptown barroOm, and, having drank pretty freely
naturally got into political discussion, and
quite as naturally wound up by getting into q
6ght. 1t is not recorded which got the best OF
the argument, but 1t Is quite sure that McLough.
I'm got the worst OF the fight, Tor he came away
minus portion OF his lett ear. The lat Ell gentle
man. discounted, but not wholly DISCOURAGED
Ing the case into the courts He accordnsy MADE
complaint against the cannibalistc Burke,
who was arrested and indicted for mayhem and
tried before Recorder Hackett In The General
Sessions, convicted aud sentenced to State Prison
ior fifteen years. An appeal was taken from this
Judgment to the supreme Court, General Term
where the case came up Tor argument vest eraay
AIR. Peter Mitchell appearing Tor tae appellant aud
nstI nsoA attorney s Phelps appearing On behalf Of
lengthy and ingenious argument, the main point
Of when was showing that biting OF the portion
OF an ear Is not mayhem. either At common law or
unaer the statute. On the other side II was
Claimed that there was no ground for disturbing
that they should be afnrmed. The Court took the
papers
THE DOG AND THE TREADMILL.
The huge black mastr which was found by one
OF Mr.. Bergh's oficers operating On treadmill at
the cider press OF Charles W. Walker, corner Of
Broadway and Houston street, Is stu MADE the
basis OF profound legal inquiry into the question
whether Mr.. Walker, through such employment of
his dog, rendered himself liable TO any OF the pen.
Rles attached 10 the VIOLATION OF tie act relating
10 the prevention OF cruelty to animals. Mr..
Walker vas tried IN the Court or Special Sessions,
winch tribunal fined him 500, Mr.. Walker was
not pleased with this result, and at his instance
the case was carried on appeal 70 the Supreme
was had Yesterday, Mr.. H. q. Southworrh appear.
ing FOR Mr.. Walker and the dog ana District At.
torney Phelps appearing TOR the people and Mr..
sergh.
Mr.. Southworth went into an extended argu.
ment He claimed that, as question OF law,
fnere was no cruelty proven; that there was no
evidence or malice; that the DOG v as being used
Tor useful purpose; tnat II his neck was cbaled
tteie WAS no proof IL was not done casually and
mat the aog looking SICK or having angina pee.
tors, as described by ex.Mayer Hall, one OF The
witnesses was not evidence OF cruelty. good
snare OF the argument was % to the jurisdiction
Q, Tue Court. IT being claimed that the accused
having elected to be tried at the General Sessions,
couid not be tried al the Special Sessions.
IN reply TO the argument Mr.. Phelps was at
ne GAINED that the arrest, trial and conviction
were Ia compliance with tho law. He dwelt upon
We act tLat the trsadmill has long been recoR
Hlzeo as method OF legal prison discipline and
punishment Ia winch conpection he cited "Uld
Dalley Experiencesn ana ''Wepster's Dictionary
Nlen ne bad concluded the Court took the papers,
Deserving Its decision.
SUPREME COURT-SpECIAL TERM.
Before Judge Van Drunt.
FORECLOSURE SUIT AND FRAUDULENT As
VnomaA Davies mostsaesd Ais property 70 Mss.