Norwich bulletin., 1915-05-22
MOVES To~sET ASIDE
VERDICT OF $25
This Was Award Made in Dog Biting
Case of Street VS.. Leemis.

Tho fury in the superior court here
on Friday brought in verdict for
John W. Street that he recover s25
damages from Anton Leemis of this
city. Street had sued Leemis for 1000
! damages for being bitten on Feb. 26,
| 1914, by a dog that belonged to
Leemis.
| day morning and they returned a YER
dict through Foreman Charles D. Bah
cock at 12.47. Later in the day Attor-
ney G. w. COmstock, who has been at
torney for the plaintiff, filed a motion
to set aside the verdict and for new
| trial.
The case has not been without a
| number of amusing incidents in the
course of the trial, and some of these
| developed in the arguments made by
Attorney A. NJ. Brown for the defend
ant and Attorney Comstock for the
plaintiff.
Among his other arguments Attorney
Brown claimed that the whole matter
had been of trivial consequence and
that the plaintiff would have been sat
isf1ed with payment for his torn trous-
ers until his imagination was inf1amed
by contact with a legal mind, and he
dwelt heavily upon the fact that al
though the plaintiff had been in court
the leg injured by the dog bite had not
been shown to the jury to prove the
.
that all the evidence had shown that
but little blood had been drawn and
that Mr.. Street had really suffered no
physical injury.
When Attorney Comstock came to
make his closing argument, he said
that he hoped that it would not be
charged up against. his client if he
had Numbered in not requiring an I'M
seeinly display OF a portion of his
clients anatomy. In response to
ri i'm 10 1od
physical injury. Mr.. Comstock an
swered that neither would there be
any physical injury in the case of
bite by rattlesnake, and ~ went on
to compare the effects of a rattlesnal1e
bite and bite from a dog with the We
nom of hydrophobia in his head, de-
claring that he would about as leave
take chance from the bite of one as
from the other.
He also came to the defense Of the
character of his witnesses, upon which
Attorney Brown had laid some stress,
and Mr.. Comstock argued that al
though the plaintiff AMI the wit
nesses might not be endowed with the
mentality that would put them in
the class Of large wage earners, the
mental anguish as the more highly or
ganized individual, and mental an
guish was one of the things which the
jury was asked to take into account
in this case.
Incidentally he gave the jury some
advice about lawsuits, saying that
every map ought to have a case pend
ing in court and that he ought to be
sure to have some evidence when he
brought his case.
His brother attorneys in the court
room could not restrain their smiles
at this bit of advice.
One of the points upon which con-
Trajectory evidence was given was as
to just what kind of a, dog did the
biting. The complaint said it was a
large yellow dog named Prince. Some
of the witnesses concurred in this,
adding that Prince had long hair on
his tail and on his head. Witnesses
who testified for the defendant claim
ed that they saw the dog and that
it was small brown dog, more in
size like a black and tan
In his charge to the jury Judge
Greene told them that it must have
been a large yellow dog that did the
biting.
When such a dog was mention
ed in court in the course of the
evidence, the defendant was seen to
shake his head and say that he didn't
have such a dog.
A colored man who was a witness
and claimed he saw the biting take
place, declared he was looking over
his left shoulder at the time. When
asked how he happened to be doing
that he answered that he supposed |
the spirit moved him.