The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1876-04-05
Scadder's Dog Casa Nice Legal
Question.

called to see you ABOUT dOS case
that kinder bewilders me, and !
thought maybe you might throw
some light on her-might just give
me the law points SOS I'd know
whether it was worth while suing o.
not. You see me and man named
Potts went into partnership on a dog.
We bought him. He was a setter,
and me and Potts went shares on
him SOS to take him out a hunting.
It was never definitely settled which
half of him I owned and which half
b.longed to Potts, but somehow
kinder formed an idea in my own
mind that the hind end was Scudder's
and the front end Potts. Conse-
ouence was that when the dog barked
| always said, "There goes Pott' g
half exercising ITSELF" and when the
dogs tail wagged l always consid-
cred that my end was being agitated
And, of course, when one of my hind
legs scratched one of Potts ears or
one of his shoulders, / was perfectly
satisfied; first, because that sort of
thing was good for the whole dog;
and, second, because tile thing would
get about even when Potts head
would reach around and bite a flea
off my hind legs or snap at fly
Well, things went along smooth
enough for a while, until one day
that dog began to get into the habit
of running around after his tail. He
was the foolishest dog about that /
ever see. Used to chase his tail
round and round unit. he'd get so
giddy he couldn't bark. And you
know was skeered lest it might hurt
the dogs health, and as Potts didn't
seem to be willing to keep his end
from circulating in pursuit of nv end
Imade up my mind to chop the dog's
tail of, SOS to make him reform and
behave. So last Saturday l caused
the dog to back up agin a log, and
then I suddenly dropped the ak on
his tail, pretty close up, and the next
minute he was booming around that
yard, yowling like boat-load of wild
cats. just then Potts came up, and
be let on to he mad because I'd cut
of that tail. One word brought on
another, and pretty soon Potts sicked
that dog on me-my own half too,
mind you--and the dog bit me in the
leg, bit piece out. About halt a
pound gone; ct up by that dog. See
that; look at that leg! Now what l
want to see you about, judge, is this
Cah't | recover damages for assault
and battrry from Potts? What
eh0rned off belonged to me, rccollect.
] owHed al undivided half of that
setter pup, from the tip of his tail to
clear up to his third rih and had a
right to cut away us Rlueh Of it as I'd
mind to; while Potts, being sole
owner of the dogs head, is response
BILE when he bites anJ body
Il don't know" replied the Judge,
musingly. "There haven't been any
decisions on cases exactly like this.
But what does Mr.. Potts say upon
the subject?"
"Why, Potts view is that l divided
the dog the wrong way. When he
wants to map out his half he draws a
line from the middle of the nose,
right along the spine, and clear to the
end of the tail. That gives me one
hind leg and one fore leg and makes
him joint proprietor ia the tail. And
be says that if / wanted to cut off my
half of the tail l might have done it,
and he wouldn't've cared; but what
made him mad was that / wasted his
property without consulting him.
But that theory seems to me little
strained, and if it's legal, why I'm
going to close out my half of that
dog at sacrifice sooner than hold
any interest in him on those princi-
pies. Now, Judge, what do you think
about it2"
"Well," said the Judge, 81 can
hardly decide so important question
of hand; but at the first glance my
opinion is that you own the whole
dog, and that Potts alto owns the
whole dog. So when he bites you a
suit won't lie against Potts, and the
only thing you can do to obtain JUS
tice is to make the dog bite Potts
also. AS for the tail, when it is sep
arated from the dog it is no longer
the dogs tail, and is not worth fight
ing about"
Cant sue Potts, you say?'
II think not"
tsC.ztl e ~