The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-05-13

counting room and carefully examined 1cf
injuries. 1t was found that the bones q
the left fore leg were broken and that tho
animal was in great pain. "We must
send for a doctor" said one. "Of course
was the quick response of all the others;
9sbut first let us consider whose portion OF
the cat has been injured"
This was easily settled. The left fore
leg Of the cat belonged to Manockjee, SO
it was the duty of Manockjee to send for
the physician and foot the bill.
A doctor was accordingly sent for and
did all in his power to relieve the suffer-
ings of the injured animal. Tn leg was
wrapped in bandages soaked in turpentine
liniment, and regularly each day the doc
tor made his professional call at the great
house to hasten the recovery of the mascot.
But it is no easy matter to weld a broken
bone when a cat is the patient. Pussy
would put her foot to the ground once in
awhile and undo all the work Of her doc
tor friend.
In the early part of January, 1898, the
cat was walking about over the tables ana
desks of the counting room when sheo over
turned a lighted lamp. The fame from
the lamp ignited the turpentine with
which the bandages were soaked, q
pussy flew in terror through the counting
room into the warehouse. The agony Of
the burning bandage> about the leg kepe
the poor beast going ct top speed, evident
~ hoping to find relief in some Of the snug
corners among the bales of silk, where she
had taken many a quiet nap on other oc-
casions. Before help could be summoned
the great warehouse. with it's valuable
contents, was in flames, and three hours
after only the big iron safe marked the
spot where once stood the old, old house
of Manockjee, Poonieajee & Co.
The partners took their loss with all the
stoical forbearance of the confirmed fatal
list. All things were ordained in the be-
ginning. This was merely a decree of fate.
So they bowed d~eferentially to fate and
calmly proceeded to rebuild upon the ruins.
But now came the important question
of settling for loss.
Who was at fault? A business meeting
of the firm was held, and it was soon de-
cided by the other three partners that the
whole damage was caused by the burning
bandage wrapped about the left fore leg OF
the cat. That left fore leg was the indi-
vidual and separate property of Manock-
jee, which made decision an easy matter.
OF course Manockjee was responsible for
Gl0 OBSTRUCTION Oh Inc Whf6HOuS6. 1u6fo
was no room for doubt.
Although Manockjee did not dispute
this assertion outright, still he asked for
| time to reflect before assuming the entire
| responsibility.
At last he asked his partners If they
would object to a friendly suit in the
courts to decide for a certainty just whore
the blame should be lodged. SIN this
manner said he, Eve may settle the
matter for all time, and it will leave no
room for hare feelings"
This was agreed to, with the following
somewhat strange result:
The case was presented fairly and with
out prejudice. Manockjee had retained
one of the brightest pleaders before the In
dian bar, and, through his shrewd efforts,
the judge handed down the following re-
markable decision:
1.-The cat, being owned severally by four
men, each being proprietor of a designat-
ed section of the animal, overturned a
lamp and set fire to a bandage on the left
fore leg. The cat in fright ran into the
warehouse and communicated the fire to
the goods stored therein.
"Held, that the owner of the section Of
the cat which included the ~bandaged leg
is not responsible for the damage caused
by the fire, because the three other owners,
proprietors of the three other legs, were
guilty of contributory negligence in that
it was by the assistance of the legs owned
| by them that the cat was enabled to run
into the warehouse and spread thed flames
Judgment for defendant"