The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-06-20
LEGAL FIGHTS OVER DOGS.
TWO CASES ILLUSTRATING HOW
MEN CAN LOVE CANNES.
Justice Young Hedged in by Abstruee
Propositions, Growing Out OF an At
tachment Suit--Costs Are Naught to
be Considered.

People may ridicule the proposition that
dogs are property, but stubborn and ex-
pensive legal fights are not unlrequently
waged over them.
Powerful and vexing points OF law, too,
are not altogether unknown in contests
OF this kind, and sorely try the Judicial
mind OF him who sits to hear tho case for
adjudication.
case or two in point:
When the man Wallace, who went 10
the wall in various attachment suits some
few weeks ago, delivered up his goods to
the officers, among tho effects was litter
Of blooded pups Two of them, according
to previous agreement, were the property
OF Henry fazzi. After the birth OF the
pups, Mr.. Fazzi went to the home OF
Mr.. Wallace ,beheld the CANNES that they
were shapely and promising. and made
his selections Thus satisfied he went
away, and for a few days paid no more
heed to his property. Then he bethought
himself OF their actual possession, and
wrote a note for the delivery TO an agent
order arrived they found two Deputy
Sheri1s-George Powell and j. j. Murphy
there, with documents calling for about
every stick or parcel Of Mr.. Wal
lace's effects. With these went the
dogs. Later, through some alleged de-
feet or loophole, the writ carried
by Deputy Murphy was withdrawn, the
dogs were not sold, and went back 10 Mr..
Wallace. Deputy Murphy secured an.
other writ OF attachment, however, went
out and included the dogs, and about the
same time that Mr.. Fazzi renewed the
order for his two. The officer came out
winner again, and until within the last
day or two had them beyond the discov-
cry of Mr.. Fazzi or his agents. A lawsuit
followed, which came up for hearing be-
fore Justice Young yesterday afternoon.
Deputy Murphy relied upon the legality
OF the writ by which he came into tenn
porary possession OF tho dogs. Mr.. Fazi
urged that, since he had selected his two
even before writ OF attachment was
thought OF, had preferred his order for
them about the time the first attachment
papers were served and long before the
attachment under which they were really
held was executed. then the pups were
his property, not that Of Mr..
Wallace at all, and as such not
liable to attachment because OF any delin.
quency OF that gentleman. The Court
was troubled over two legal PROPOSE
tons, viz: Priority @. the demands upon
Mr.. Wallace for the dogs, and whether
there had been a legal separation OF them
by Mr.. Wallace 10 Mr.. Fazzi. His Honor
would not risk his judgment on a speedy
decision, and therefore deferred until this
morning, when learned counsel on both
sides will submit authorities on both the
propositions.
This is the second case with dog flesh as
a basis that Justice Young has been called
upon 10 slraighten out, and the other also
hangs fire IL is somewhat amusing. too,
as IL shows the length TO winch people
will 20 when they once start in TO contest
a question IN the courts Some time ago,
Mr. John h. Robinson purhasod from
Mr.. Jerry Cockrcll a pup for tho sum OF
$40. IL was sent, through the Southern
Express Company, to Minneapolis. Avery
short time after its arrival there, breath left
its body, and IL became lamented corpse.
SO the proof goes, the express company in.
sists that the dog passed away from natural
causes, while the plaintiff insists that II
was from injuries received in transit. Over
that s75 piece OF property both sides are
stubbornly fighting, and the prospect Is for
not less than $3.50 worth OF dispositions, to
say nothing of other heavy costs. Tho
fight Is still on, with no prophesying where
and when II will end.