HOW TO GAIN A LOSS. 137 



a dog of the same species, seems equally applicable to Crop he can be no other 

 than some benignant human being- transformed into a dog, by one of those Enchanters 

 celebrated in the Arabian Nights. 



The owner of this most valuable animal, lost him through the malice and 

 cowardice of his neighbour, an Italian ; and although well aware of the exhorbi- 

 tant price which justice bears in our legal market, deterring so many from be- 

 coming purchasers, he resolutely and meritoriously determined to seek his remedy ; 

 and, as will be seen by the account of the trial, gained his cause, by which, with 

 Teague of old, he gained a loss ; as defendant, on losing his cause, instantly made 

 himself scarce, leaving- Plaintiff to stand Captain for costs and damages, who 

 thereby verified the old English proverb on sueing a beggar. 



MUDFORD versus DU RIEU. 



K, B. July 17, 1816. Sittings after Term. This was an action brought by Mr. Mudford, a 

 literary Gentleman then residing at Somers' Town, against the Defendant, to recover compen- 

 sation in damages, for the loss of a dog which was wilfully shot by the Defendant. % 



Mr. Topping, for the Plaintiff, addressing the Jury, stated that, the Dog in question was a most 

 beautiful animal of the Russian breed, perfectly docile and good humored, but like all dogs of his 

 age, being but fifteen months old, was playful and wild. From a puppy, not a single instance had 

 occurred, in which it had either bitten or attempted to bite any person whomsoever. The 

 Defendant's Children nevertheless had thought proper, on various occasions, to teaze the animal by 

 beating him with boxing gloves, thereby occasioning him to bark at them, yet never, on any occa- 

 sion, attemping to bite them. His barking, however, had produced, either an actual or a fictitious 

 alarm, on the part of the children ', and the Defendant, in consequence, at one time, when passing 

 the animal, gave him a violent kick, threatening at the same time, if he should ever catch him in the 

 field, he would shoot him. Under apprehension of this threat, the Plaintiff had given directions, 

 that the dog should be confined within doors; and he was so confined for ten days, previous to the 

 6th of July, 1815, when the door being accidentally left open, he ran into the yard, and leaping over 

 the wall into the field, he expressed his joy at the recovery of his liberty, by loud barking and 

 running about from place to place. Mrs. Mudford, the Plaintiff's sister, and the servant, imme- 

 diately went out in order to catch him, but their efforts, from the playfulness of the animal, were 

 ineffectual. While they were thus engaged, the Defendant's daughter came out, accompanied by 

 a female companion, and approaching the dog, the former took up a brick, saying, if the animal 

 came nearer she would beat out his brains. The dog did run nearer but never attempted to touch 

 her, continuing his gambols with perfect indifference to every person. The Defendant's wife now 

 came out, and called to her husband, for heaven's sake to bring out his pistols. At the same time 

 she went towards the dog, with her infant son, about four years old no proof of apprehension on 

 her part and put the child towards the animal's mouth, but it did not offer to bite: she however, 

 as if by previous concert, immediately cried out, oh ! my child ! and drew it away. The child, 

 alarmed at the barking of the dog, shrieked, upon which the Defendant came out with a pistol 

 under his coat. By this time the dog had reached his master's wall, and Mrs. Mudford was pulling 

 him down by the neck, when the Defendant drew forth his pistol, and shot the animal in the loins, 

 and wounded him so, that he died in a very short time. 



