Arizona republican., 1901-11-30
THE STATUS OF THE MULE
It is Now Being Determined in Jus
 tice Burnett's Court.

The establishment of the status of the mule in Maricopa county was begun in the court oi Justice Burnett yester- day morning. This matter came up in the case of John M Hardee against Maricopa county, Charles Pendergast and his bondsmen ex rel. On September 20 of this year a mule belonging to the plaintiff while trying to cross a cul- vert in road district No of which MT HenderEast is supervisor, fell through the structure and sustained injuries which have ever since kept him in a state of either incapacity or conva- lescerce. After remonstrating with the board of supervisors for some time on the defective condition of the culvert without any material or financial re- suit. Mir. Hardee brought suit against the county in the sum of $50 and em- ployed Messrs. Baker and Bennett. a firm of $500 attorneys to collect it for him.
 The defense is represented by Messrs. Alexander and Bullard. MT. Alexan- der's interest in the case Is more than professional; he is one of Pendergast's bondsmen. There was as much diff culty in getting Q jury as if it were notable murder case and one was not secured until the middle of the after noon. Ten witnesses were examined for the plaintiff and the sun went COwn so that the case was continued until today. Among the witnesses was County Treasurer J. F. Walker, by whose expert testimony the plaintiff de- sired to find out whether there were any funds to the credit of road dis trict No. 9; if there were there would be some hope of recovery against the county. That was evidently a thought of Mir. Alexander's.
 Another expert witness was Dr. F. O. Richmond, who testified as to the di- lapidated condition of the mule when he was called in the middle of the night to treat him. He said that ali the fragments were torn from one fore leg and it looked at the time as if it would be necessary to shoot him. He had seen the mule later and while there was an improvement to be noted the mule was still not at himself and per haps never would be. At present he was walking on the heels of his fore feeet and did not seem disposed to adopt any other style of locomotion.
 He further manifested q general in- difference regarding all kinds Of farm
 work. The inference drawn from Dr.
 Richmond's testimony was that the mule was less valuable than no mule at all and that the county should be
 compelled to pay additional damages for not having killed him outright. Then the doctor was subjected to
 cross examination by MT. Alexander who thought he had caught the witness in a professional error. He understood him to say something about the liga-
 ments on the front part of the mules l leg when Captain Alexander and ev- cry other anatomist knows that a mule has no fragments there and if he had them he would not know what to dc with them. Dr. Richmond explained | that he had spoken only of the liza
 ments behind the bones of the fore leg | Captain Alexander accepted the eX- planation and the case proceeded 1 It was developed that the defenst | is going to rely largely on a charge o
 contributory carelessness against th'
 mule. The prosecution is threatening
 to bring the mule into court today la
 beled Exhibit No. L.