It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A dog case heard on the Croydon circuit

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
From the Spectator of August 5th, 1871

There was a charming dog case heard on the Croydon circuit on Tuesday. Lady Selwyn claimed a dog, a splendid specimen of the Labrador breed, all black but his chest and paws, and with a magnificent head. It was urged by plaintiff that the dog was only two years old. It was in the possession of a Mr. Booth, who alleged, in all sincerity it would appear, that the dog was seven years old, had been been lost by him in 1867, and had since been recovered. Baron Bramwell, who understands big dogs, suggested that the dog's evidence should be taken, and the beast being introduced into Court and accommodated, as became his dignity, with a seat on the bench, gave his evidence, we were going to say, like a Christian, but much more discriminatingly than most Christians do. He tolerated Mr. Booth good-naturedly, but when the governess who had fed him at Lady Selwyn's came into Court he whined and struggled to get near her. Not being a Christian, he was not expected to tell lies, and was therefore unsworn; but his evidence decided the ownership, and the judge decided the damages. He would give £100 for him, he said,—a bit of deliciously irregular and conclusive evidence, The dog on hearing the decision quitted the bench, cut Mr. Booth dead, and ran delightedly up to the governess. He ought to have a vote.




posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   
The dog cut Mr booth dead in the end, what a rollercoaster ride!

a reply to: DISRAELI



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   
The man said he lost the dog in 1867 ? That dog was a lot older than 2 or the 8 specified. Good thing he wasn't under oath, I am so confused. Is this British humor at its best ?



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN
No, I don't think there was anything wrong with his mathematics, anyway.
He claimed that the dog was seven years old at the time of the case, and that he had first lost it four years previously.
So HIS belief must have been that the dog was three years old when he lost it.
The statement that it was only two years old now came from the plaintiff.
I don't know dogs, but if it's easy to tell the difference between a two-year old and a seven-year old Labrador, that would have helped the judge's decision, if necessary.


P.S.The man was under oath. The dog wasn't.
edit on 17-9-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Well now I feel dumb, as I missed the date of the article there at the beginning. Makes a little more sense now as I was thinking this was a recent case. Is there a link to the article ?



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN
Sorry, I should have added a link originally;
archive.spectator.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Hey that's an awesome link. Love to browse the microfiche at the library of the local paper and the back issues. Now I will spend some time looking back in time, thanks



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN
Here is an easier link to the full index.
archive.spectator.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 07:11 AM
link   
From Punch of October the 25th, 1873 (quoting a local newspeper);
"Tarporley;
Early on Tuesday evening last it was discovered that two fine sheep had been worried which were in a flock belonging to Mr. Finchey of Beech Lane Farm.
The owners of the dogs which killed the sheep had been shot, as soon as they knew, to prevent any further outrage."

Punch's comment on this story;
"We admire the expedition with which right was done; we also admire the good feeling which delayed execution until the offenders were apprised of their crime."
(Of course Punch is expecting its readers to notice the misprint which has the owners themselves being shot.)

I may add further Victorian dog stories as I come across them.


edit on 27-10-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
In further dog news, Punch (October 7th 1876) reports on a decision from the Justices of Chertsey Petty sessions. Being concerned about the danger of mad dogs infecting other dogs, they issued this order;

"Now it is hereby ordered that all persons having the ownership or possession of any dog known to have been bitten by any other dog within three months preceding the date hereof, shall forthwith be destroyed, or placed under proper and effective control..."
Punch does not know how many dog owners were destroyed under this order, or by what means, but speculates on the options.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join