Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1904-04-22
PRISONERS SENTENCED
Several Given Terms in the State
Prison at Windsor
from Dog Bite Before Court with
Medical Witnesses.

SUIT from vernon Tor Damages Resulting
from a Dog Bite Before Court with
Medical Witnesses.
Emory Phettepace by his next friend.
j. G. Allen, VS.. j. O. Frost This was an
action on the case to recover for injuries
to the plaintiff resulting from n bite by
the defendants dog. The plaintiff was
a boy 13 years old at the time of the in
jury. The evidence in his behalf tended
to show that the defendant had kept a
watchdog for several years at his resi-
dence in Vernon. The dog was housed
nights and i'm cold weather in an outbuid-
ing, and running from this building to
the highway in front of the house was
trolley wire suspended or feet from
the ground to which was attached a
chain with a swivil this chain being at
tached to a collar on the dogs neck. This
enabled the dog to run back and forth be-
tween his kennel and the end of the wire
restrained to certain limits.
1t was his custom, as shown by sever
al witnesses, to bark furiously on the APP
prodCh of team and rush to the end of
the trolley next to the highway. his hair
standing up and his forward parts being
thrown into the air when he reached the
end of the wire. The dog was usually
confined to the trolley. but on a few oc-
Casions was at large.
on Aug go 1902, plaintiff rode on his
wheel to rear piazza of Frost house. The
dog, then lying on the piazza, united,
sprang up and bit the boy severely on the
back OF the leg as he sprang of his wheel.
DR.. Newton OF Mortified was called to
dress the wound, and attended the boy
about a month at that time and after
ward treated him for eczema, from which
| the boy is suffering at the present time.
| The doctor testified that in his opinion the
eczema resulted indirectly from the bite
! of the dog.
The testimony on the part OF the de-
| PENDANT tended to show that the dog in
| question was known as a Chesapeake Bay
| Water dog, bought by him as a watch
| dog, he having previously had much trou-
BILE with chicken thieves and trespassers
| on his premises. The dog was kind and
! gentle, so far as had ever come to his
| knowledge and had never shown an in
clination to be ugly. He had never bit
ten anyone but this boy, and the bite was
owing to the boys CarelessneSs in riding
on his wheel to within six inches of
where the dog lay quietly on the ground
and then jumping of the wheel upon the
dogs tail The defendant had taken
special interest in the boy after the bite.
and after recovery had taken the boy in
| to his home, boarding and clothing him
and sending him to school for time.
Defendants evidence further tended to
show that the boys injuries were not as
| severe as claimed. that the boy was seen
riag- in two or three days after the bite
The boy also stuck a nail in his foot about
| that time. the injury received therefrom
being more serious than the bite of the
dog The defendant produced Doctors
Pratt and Aldrich of Brattleboro. who
stated that they had recently examined
the boy and in their opinion it was not
possible that the eczema from which the
! boy was now suffering could have been
produced by the dog bite.
An interesting cross examination follow
| ed in which the doctors stated that the
! dog bite might have produced conditions
| which might later have caused the disease
! The defendant produced receipt signed
| by the boys father by which. for a con-
sideration of so in cash and $24 in rent
due the defendant by the father, this
suit, also another brought 10y the father
was to be discontinued. The receipt was
dated Jan. 81, 1903 a short time after the
bringing of this suit 1t was also shown
that +. f. Akley was appointed guardian
Of the boy Aug. 20, 1908. and that he rati-
FED the settlement made between the de-
PENDANT and the boys father
The jury found. in answer to the spe-
cial questions proposed by the court;
LIST That before the plaintiff was bit
ten the defendant had seen or heard
| enough concerning the dog to convince
II man of ordinary prudence of the dog 5
inclination to commit the class of injuries
here complained OF.
2nd. That the plaintiff suffered dam
ages in the sum of $225.
Srd That this suit and the claim for
| damages involved therein was not settled
in good faith by the defendant with the
plaintiffs father,
A. f Schwenk, ]. X. Batcheder and
A c. Spencer for the plaintiff; Martin
and Gibson for the defendant.
Sentences were imposed Monday and
| Tuesday as follows: Fred Charron, for
attempting to break Jail, not less than
Az nor more than 5 years in state prison,
and for assauting officer Worden of Brat
tleboro not less than 213 nor more than
| years in the house OF correction: Henry
Tucker, for burglary, not less than 212
nor more than years in state prison
Gabriel Jones of Newfane, for burglary,
not less than years nor more than
years in the house of correction; Fred
c. Mundell of Rockingham, for larceny,
| not less than years nor more than
ga years in state prison; George Boorn
OF Brattleboro, for larceny. to pay fine
| of $50 and costs.