The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1897-05-25
DernNss mas IT'S INNNo.
And tn. B~el.y-nsrtmann Dog Case
Secures a Set Back.

Benjamin O. Barclays $500 damage
suit against John g. Hartmann TO recover
for personal injuries for q dogs bite, 70.
ceiver quite set back in Superior Court
yesterday afternoon after the plaintiffs
closed their direct testimony. Their clos.
ing witnesses were James +. W, BOD. VIM.
Palmer and VIM. Ainscow. the former
two testifying to the plaintiffs inability
to work because Of the injury, and the
latter to the dog having jumped at, but
never biting him.
Then 1t was that the. defense opened
rather aubrously, but prospectsfor YER
dict bettered as the case proceeded. The
court refused to grant Mr. Ponder's motion
for non-suit, which he based ON the fail
ure OF the plaintiff not having notified tho
defendant Of the dangerous or vicious
character OF the dog whereupon Mr., Sauls-
bury called to the stand Mrs. Jennie Cook,
who at the time Barclay was bitten, was o
servant in the Hartmann home She saw
Barclay playing with the dog as she sup
posed, but did not see the animal bite him
Barclay said that the dog bit him and he
went to physicians, had the wound eau
terized, returned to the house and finished
his work. At the timo Mr.. Hartmann
wanted to kill the dog, but Mr. Barclay
said he would not insist on the killing of
the animal. Mrs Cook closed her tesli-
mony by saying that once on the day Bur.
clay was at the house he struck the dog
with hammer
John G. Hartmann, the plaintiff, told
OF having purchased the dog In 1889 as a
pet for his wife. He had often seen the
dog play with children and strangers, but
never knew Of it biting any one. Regard.
ing the bite Mr.. Hartmann said he ex-
amined 1t and saw nothing that indicated
seriousness. He sent Mr.. Barclay to DR..
Finley and had 1t cauteriz,d, however.
Mr.. Hartmann showed considerable feel.
Ing Tor Mr.. Barclay, as was brought out
IN him INT. Hartmann) having informed
the firm of James +, Wood and Company
that II the plaintiff lost any time because
OF the bite to send the bill to him and he
would pay 1t. The firm sent him no such
bill, however, which indicated strongly
that Barclay had not been incapacitated
by the injury.
Mr.. Hartmann left the stand after suy-
Ing that he never heard of Dan" the dog,
ever biting anyone other than Mr.. Barclay,
Or attacking anyone.
An Interesting feature in the case arose
at this point Mr.. Salisbury called II.
+. Ewes the vet erinarian, to prove the
Character OF the canine previous to October
1888. The doctor replied that it was quiet
thereupun Mr.. Hilles arose and laugh
lngly give notice that he desired council
Oh the Other side TO lay the necessary legal
grounds for presenting such testimony.
The court and every lawyer laughed
heartily, and after quiet had been restored
tho doctor told of having performed several
painful operations on the dog, previous to
the biting Of Mr. Barclay, but never having
been snapped at Upon no occasion pre-
N!uus To the Incident did the doctor ether
iLo the animal. The doctor moreover
never knew Of the dog attacking any
one.
Fred G. Mammele gave testimony which
further established the quiet nature of the
dog, John +, Hyde, H. w. Anderson and
nall dozen other witnesses who live near
the Hartmann home, corroborated Mr.
Mnmmee 5 testimony, after which court
adjourned.