Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1886-01-15
A LAWSUIT ABOUT A PRIZE PUG.
THE JUDGE DECIDES THE BEAST WAS LENT,
NOT GIVEN.

y
81, before Mr.. Justice Field, without a
jury.
This was an action to recover posses
sion of Il prize pug bitch called Little
Gypsy Queen. The defendant, Mrs.
Denne, pleaded that the dog had been
given to her by the plaintiff; and her
husband, who was made a defendant aft
er action was brought, denied that he had
detained the dog as alleged, and also set
up the legal defence that, as his wife had
separate estate, the action could not be
maintained as against him.
The plaintiff, Mr.. j. Bligh Monck of
Coley Park, owned valuable pug bitch
called Little Gypsy Queen, which his
wife was in the habit of exhibiting at
dog shows. Toward the latter end of
the year 1891 the pug bitch in dispute
had been sent to Gloucester to be taken
care of by the defendants, the plaintiff
and his wife being away from home ON
account of the lattcr's health. Mrs.
Denne, who was great friend of Mrs.
Monck, had a pug dog, and it would seem
that Little Gypsy Queen was to be bred
from and also to be shown at the Chel-
tenham dog show, to be held on Nov. %
of the same year.
Mrs. Monk died in that month, and
a correspondence began between Mrs.
! Denne and Mr.. Monck relative to the
pug, the plaintiff contending that in it
he merely offered to sell it to Mrs. Denne,
and as the learned Judge remarked. no
doubt bona tlde believed--it was given to
her. The whole question. therefore,
turned upon the meaning of that cores
pondence as showing what was the in
tcntion of Mr.. Monck. The first letter
was from Mr.. Monck to Mrs. Denne on
Dee. 6. 1891. in which. after abiding to
his wite's death and thanking Mrs,
Denne for taking care of the pug bitch,
he Informed her that he was breaking up
his establishment and would never show
dogs again, and concluding by abiding
to Little Gypsy Queen thus: "She ought
to win prizes and breed pups for some
years. Have you any wish to become
the owner of her for these purposes? If
so. | will give you the refusal of her be-
fore offering her to Mrs, Foster Do not
answer this ii a hurry"
On the same day Mrs Denne had writ
ten to Mr.. MOnck, addressed to Colcy
c,.n,, n 81, n a I'll
TO purchase the pug, which did not, how
ever, reach Mr.. Monck until about Dee
10, he being away from home. In his
evidence Mr.. Monck said he had takeI
this as an answer to his letter of Dec. 6
lie had not noticed that hers was datet
the same day, and therefore could no
have been an answer to his, as he haC
thought.
On Dec. Is Mrs. Denne wrote tn,
plaintiff the letter which she relied upon
as showing she accepted the dog rs
gift. In it she said: "Thank you very
much for your kind letter. 1t is so goot
of you to think that should like to hav
Little Gypsy Queen" &c. This Mr.
Monck said he took to be a letter supple
mentary to the one she sent him to Cole,
Park; and second answer to his of Dec
6, in which he offered her the refusal O
the pug. Further letters followed-abou
: showing the pug at the Crystal Palac
show. &c.-till, on Dec. %, Mrs. Foste
wrote to Mrs. Denne, saying: II re
. ,.a oil ok
one from Mr.. MOnck to say you had en-
tered Little Gypsy Queen, and | had t.
have her after the show" &c. Where
) upon Mrs. Denne wrote of to Mr.. Monck
what Mrs. Foster meant. and requeste
him to write and tell her Mrs. Foster
that he had given Little Gypsy Queen t.
her (Nlrs. Denne).
In reply, on Dec %, Mr.. Monck wrot
to Mrs. Denne: IL must have eXpresse
myself very badly in my letter froI
Bournemouth if held out any hopes o
= your being able to retain Gypsy Quee
for permanently. | only intended tina
you should keep her over the c. p. show
and then | should sell her. In the mea
time | find that Mrs. Foster had Mrs
= Monck's promise of the first refusal, S
= that l could not offer her to you withou
i Mrs. Fosters consent" &c. Mrs. Dem
replied to this, setting up her claim t
the pug as a gift from Mr.. Monck to hel
: A lengthy correspondence ensued, whic
t resulted in the present action. At tn
conclusion of the case
Mr.. Justice Field reviewed the fact
and correspondence, and said there mus
clearly be a verdict for the plaintiff. Ii
. was quite clear that by the words -
will give you the first refusal of her
the plaintiff meant refusal of purchas
= and not of sale. Such an expression wa
= the commonest thing in the world wher
= a man had thing to sell. No doul
Mrs. Denne, as she said took it to mea
a present, and so accepted the first ref