The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-04-20
"LIMPY'S" BAD HABITS
CANNOT BE URGED IN POLLOCK'S
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY.
City Attorney Kern Gives His Opinion
i'm PoIIOck's Claim - Mayors
Cabinet Met Yesterday.

City Attorney Kern rendered a decision
yesterday in the claim of /. Pollard against
the city for $27.5 which is quite humorous.
Pollard attended the auction sale of con-
demned horses of the fire department held
a few weeks ago, and bought in 'Limpy."
a horse that had been appraised for $40.
paying s35 for the animal. ''Limpy" had
been knocked down TO a bidder for s29.
but another man stepped up claiming he
had bid the same amount. The horse was
again placed on the block and the two
men ran the amount up to $54. when Pol
lard bid $S5 and got the horse. He soon
made complaint to the Board of Safety
that the animal had a brokens back and
would lie down when hitched to a wagon
He sold the horse to a gypsy for $50. and
wanted the board TO refund him what he
had lost on the animal The board asked
City Attorney Kern for an opinion and
the following is what he says on the mat
ter:
Your communication of yesterday, con-
corning the claim of MIR. /. Pollock, for
$3.50, is before me. The facts stated are
briefly: ID. That at public sale Of con-
horse with a broken back, which was in
the habit of lying down whenever hitched
UP. (2). That after Mr.. Pollock had pur-
chased this broken-backed and evi-minded
creature he discovered that he was neither
useful nor valuable. and sold him to a
gypsy for the sum of $50: CO. The name
of the horse was ''Lfmpy." "a. The name
of the gypsy was not given.
Mr.. Pollock requests the city 70 pay him
the difference between $35. the amount
which he is said to have paid for "Limpy"
and $3.50. the amount he received from
the unnamed gypsy. If the horse 'Limpy"
a
Pollock's purchase, 1t is not difficult to
understand why he acquired the habit of
lying down. 1t is somewhat surprising
that he stood up at all. The fact that he
stood up without props when not hitched
proves that he was anatomical curios-
ity. Unfortunately for Mr.. Pollock's claim,
condemned animal-no longer fit for
official duty-and Mr.. Pollock must
have purchased him with full
knowledge that he was neither
horses in which 'Iimpy" was included,
sold at the same time, was appraised at
less than 500. which fact was also notice
that the condition of such horses. includ-
ing "Limpy'' was such as to invite scru-
tiny on the part of purchasers. If the
auctioneers language or silence deceived
anyone, the city Is not liable, for neither
by words nor silence could he obscure the
facts as to these condemned animals.
1t is not explained why Mr.. Pollock.
when he discovered that 'Limpy" had a
broken back and the disagreeable habit
referred to. did not return the animal to
the board and demand that his money be
refunded. The board, having once sold this
broken beast for $35, might have
realized a better price than the $3.50 paid
by the misguided and nameless gypsy.
Instead of taking this course. Mr.. Pol
lock- on his own responsibility. and with
out consulting the board, sold this animal
without appraisement at private sale to
an unsuspecting individual of nomadic pro-
clivities. In view of the facts before me,
| am compelled to decide that there is
no legal liability on the part of the city
to Mr. Pollock. The question as to whether
or not the fact which you suggest that
Mr. Pollock is a man of family" etc.
ought to weigh in the matter is not before
me. That problem must be solved by the
board and controller.