The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1897-05-24
DOG CAUSES A LAWSUIT.
John q. Hartman's rIastiff Responsible
For Benjamin c. Barclays $4,000
Action.

For Benjamin c. Barclays $4,000
Action.
There began suit In Superior Court
this morning the like of which
has seldom, IL ever, been seen in q
New Castle County Court. 1t was an
action of Benjamin G. Barclay to recover
from John q. Hartmann, the president OF
tine Hartmann 81 Fehrenbach Brewing
Company 5000 damages for dogs bite
which he suffered on October 81, 1896.
VIM :. Hilles appeared fer Mr.. Barclay
and Willard Salisbury and James W.
Ponder for Mr. Hartman. The dog was
there also He is a large noble looking
animal, brown in color, and evidently Of a
quiet nature. He laid quie tly at the feet
| OF his master and was not disturbed even
| when counsel got into wrangle over
| questions and points Of law raised. His
dogship was all attraction and command.
ed even moro attention than any other
feature of tho case.
After Clerk Jauvier called the twelve
Jurors Mr.. Hilles stated the facts of the
case to them.
They We're that on the day mentioned.
Mr.. Barclay, who was in The employ of
Wood Brothers, was working at the Hart.
man residence when the dog followed him
out of tho yard and bit him SO severely on
able to use 1t. Mr.. Saulsbury's plea was
not guilty but he admitted ownership Of
the dog.
The case opened with tilt between
counsel. 1t appears that Mr.. Hartmann
did not have the dog registered until the
dayit is alleged to have bitten Mr. Bar
clay and the police station records show
Ing this were presented TO provo owner
ship, rs Mr.. Hilles said, but it was evident
that he had some other object in view
Mr.. salisbury saw it and eu,ers! IN OBJ.
lection to the line of testimony, admitting
tnat MI. Hartmann was tha owner, but
the Court thought MIR. H.les questions
We're admissible and allowed Po.Ico Cap.
tain Chambers to present the testimony.
y was as Mr.. Hilles alleged. Tao pa IL.
III hau therefore established the fact that
Mr. Hartman had also harbored tho dog
unregistered for months
Mr. Barclay then went on the stand and
told of having been at tho Hartmann
house on October p to do some repair
work on the roof. When he crLerel tho
yard the dog WIS in the basement Of the
building having been placed there after
having attempted to bite another man.
NJ. Barclay then told of leaving the yard
when the dog followed and bit him. Mrs
John q. Hartman at the time remarked
that She was sorry the dog had bitten him.
They kept the animal to keen tralnps
from the house. What Mrs Hartman
said Mr.. Salisbury held was immateriM
TO The case and moved that 1t be stricken
out Mr.. Hille5 thought it was net and pre-.
sented authorities in support of his con.
tentiDn. The argument wa; long one.
Mr.. salisbury held that Mrs. Hartman
was not party to the suit and US she was
responsible for its action. The Court
ruled tho admssability of the question,
whereupon Mr.. Salisbury noted an ex.
Cepton
Mr.. Barclay then told of being unable
to work and of he hand becoming festerrd
I'VE months afterwards because of the bite,
Ho lost considerable time because OF tho
pie. 10 day he suffers from the injury.
At this point Mr. Hilles handed the wit.
ness coat which he wore on the day tbs
dog attacked him and which showed eyi.
dehce OF q struggle with the animal The
garment was offered in evidence without
objection.
-, Then Mr.. salisbury put the witness
through course of questions, comprising
rs cro's-eXamination, during which Mr.,
ba'H'ay exhibited his hand to the jury and
repeated the story of how he obtained It,
MI SALISBURY took up the matter CT the
wound being such as TO prevent tho wit
ness working and dismissed after trying
." prove mat the man was not working
because there was nothing for him tC do.
Or. Samuel A. Finley testified to Gnu.
tcrlzing dog bite on Mr.. Barclays hand
on October p Tho doctor next saw the
wound on February 10, 1896, when MIR
Barclay complained of soreness The tloo.
tor advised applications Of iodine and
When the patient returned on February 20
therc vas no change. Ga March 6 the
physician used the lance, there being
swelling on the hand. On April 2s and
several times in May Mr. Barclay visited |
the doctor and received treatment for his |
hanu. There had been no treatment since |
April 80, however
Inc examination closed by tho doctor |
stating that Mr.. Hartmann had paid for |
the attention given Mr.. Barclay.
pom cross-eXamination Dr. Finley !
sad the bite was II slight ono. 1t was an
phrcntiy healed two days after the dog |
MAD done its work. Tho lancing might |
nave been the result of Mr.. Barclay hay. |
ing allowed some foreign substance to |
nave collected In the wound or bruised |
tendon i'll the hand
several moro wi nesses were examined |
ana court adjourned until 30 O'Clock.