The New York herald., 1878-11-13
HE yos BIT OF A DOG.

Since the decision in the case Of Caleb Cushing
against Fernando Woods dog. few years since. in
which it declared that the latter must be silent
during the studous hours OF the statesman be re-
moved by death otherwise, the question Of dogs
rights the rights of citizens both for and against
dogs has been one Of growing interest. Such case
though slightly confused both in testimony and re-
Sults has come before Judge McAdam and jury in
the Marine Court. Frederick Rochwedder makes and
repairs wagons up town. and John Hemmens il an
express man in the locality. Both also. Ger
MANS acquaintances Of some intimacy and mutual
patrons their business. 'von day." said the good
vrow OF Hemmens "mine man he coined
home and dcld me he vos bit OF dog.
Rochwedder's dog. see dot blood he run down,
und ! give mine man clean clothes SO he can
work, und put ssve on his wound He vos two dree
weeks he work more. Every time he hear some
aink On Something's else He always vos afraid some
aings might be happen to him. Der doctor be told
him too dot he shall dake Something's different in hes
head"
How long was the wound healingr' asked counsel
"shust about Won inch,' was the answer.
Il didn't count dem teeth. can't remember 80 far
Dvery day" was the good vrows reply.
The story Of the bitten husband was in accord with
bbat of his wife, both concurring that the bite
located somewhere in the vicinity OF the locality used
also corroborated by the testimony of John Keens and
Rudolph Evitts to the vicious character of Roch
Nedders dog In addition TO the fact that the dog was
nsnay kept chained and public notice hung up in the
shop to beware Of him. Said Keens, dot dog he vos
very sharp, und look out he bite me not at all.
Counsel-Did you ever see the dog2
Keens-No; it vos enough I hear him. ! always
look out for myself
Said Evitts, II knowed dot dog; he vos a very bad
aog, und so Keeps always away from him.
Counsel-How close did you ever go 70 the dog2
Evitts-I keep away so far he could no schnap me.
The OF the dog was in conflict with the plain
af and his wife, both ss to the extent and location Of
sown below the knee, and. the plaintiff had long
boots on him, the wound "vcs notings." Hem
MEMS" added witness, never did say notings about
At until did sue him for couple OF dollars he did owe
me, and den he did sued me-"
Counsel--what did you say 10 Hemmens at the time
the dog snapped at him?
Rochwedder-veIl. / say to him dot he dake a hair
from der dog or he shoot him. shust vich be like.
Counsel-Why did you tell him 70 take hair of
Rochwedder--vell. always have hear dot everybody
gay hair from der dog yos bite mako everydings all
Counse--what became Of this dog7
Rochwedder-Der Hudson River Railroad. he kill
him.
Counsel-How did the railroad kill him?
Rochweddcr--yen. 4 dske him NIT me vonce to col
lect leetle money und der railroad he ruined over
lim.
counsel-Ahl you took him along to help collect .
debt. did your
Rochwedder-vell Ishrugging his shoulders). shust
connscl-Yes: have no doubt he would make a
debtor fork over if such thing was possible.
The witnesses both sides having concluded
throwing light the circumstances of the case il
became Judge Nc ADAMS duty to throw light the
Law, and this he did briefly follows Every person
be said, has the right 70 keep dog other domesti-
Gated animal. and Is not liable for any damage dono
by such animal, unless ii through the negli-
pence Of the owner unless the animal III he be o
dog be accustomed 10 bite mankind unless IL be
OF savage and ferocions nature and this vicious pro-
pensity be known 20 the owner.
After i've hours earnest deberation the jury had
Jailed to TO accord any verdict aud dis
charged by the Court leaving IL to Jury of the
future to solve the dog problem.