The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1890-02-19

The trial of the Wright Dronberger case was
commenced before Judge Johnston and juay,
Thursday. 7th inst, in the Common Pleas and
occupied their attention for one week The
case grew in cele brity from the time of filing
the pc. .ition to its final submission in the forum.
by which time its Importance was sufficiently
increased in ublic estimation to catalogue it
with the select number designated '-cele-
brated." and as such it will take its place in
legal annals.
In view of the interest manifested at its trial.
we have thought proper to give a synopsis of
its particulars, sufficient to enlighten our rea-
ders as to what the controversy was about.
Briefly. then, July 10th, 1881, Mary Wright
as executrix of her hu u,band George Wright,
decreased. fled her petition in the Common Pleas
Court. setting up that. in consideration of $1i0.
the defendant Dronberger. October 18th 1925,
wrongfully and negligently sold to her husband.
then in full life. a dangerous. ferocious and
vicious bull, known as winfield" No. -,
knowing him to be such and neglectipg to so
inform the buyer. but on the contrary repre-
senting him to be docile, safe and quiet.
That the animal was sold for breeding pur-
poses, and defendant knew that it would be
necessary to groom. handle and be around him.
and that the animal could not be handled with
safety; that ON November 9th, 1885 while en-
gagged in caring for the animal. the said George
Wright was fiercely attacked. bruised and
wounded by the same, from which injuries he
died November 22d. 1885, and that his death was
from the said wrongful act of defendant.
The petition further says that Wright was SO
years old at the time of his death. and that he
left Mary Wright. his widow, and j. H. II NJ
and w. s. Wright. and Ella E. Anderson. his
only children and heirs at law, for whose bene-
fit the action was brought. and concludes by
praying for $1,000 damages against Dron-
berger.
The defendant in his answer denies that the
bull was vicious, dangerous or ferocious. or that
he knew him so to be. or that he could not be
handled with safety. enies that he repre-
sented him to be docile, safe and quiet; denies
that Wright died from injuries alleged; denies
death from wrongful act of defendant but if
Wright died from such injuries, he was guilty
of gross negligence in handling the animal
Says that Wright was 50 years old. and by reason
of his age and state of health. was untitled to
care for and handle the animal. and denies the
other allegations of the petition.
This brought the parties to an issue, but the
petition above mentioned was an amended one,
fled September 23d. 1889. the original one be-
ing found defective. by reason of which the
case the original pleaCing was Knocked
out of court. The above answer was ofcoarse
to the amended petition
AS stated before the tria al was commenced
Thursday and given to the jury the following
Wednesday. at p. m. 80 witnesses were SUBJ
penoed by the plaintiff and4 by the defendant,
making a total of IS. The case was very closely
contested throug hout by the respective counsel.
of whom 1. T. Siddall and J. II. Nichols, Esqs.,
represented the plaintiff. snd Hon. W. ZONES.
of Youngstown. and s. F. Hans Gilman, Esq, the
defendant
Each side was sanguine of victory, but the
popular opinion seemed to be that the result
would be as it was-a verdict for the defendant,
which was returned the next morning about 10
O'Clock On the first ballot the jury stood for
and against verdict for the plaintiff. On
leaving their room Wednesday night. the jmy
had not agreed. but their minds quickly met in
the morning.
The costs of the suit are estimated to be nearly
$1,000 The plaintiff has filed a motion for a
new trial. covering all the statutory grounds,
and in of failure to obtain it. the case will
go to the Circuit Court on error.