138 ISStE OP THE TRIAL. 



With respect to the value of the animal, the learned counsel said, that he should be enabled 

 to prove that the Plaintiff had been offered a very large sum for him, and that he was possessed of 

 many of those acquirements which render a dog valuable, such as fetching and carrying his 

 master's clothes and slippers, with an uncommon attachment to all the family, and the most perfect 

 good-nature to all who treated him with kindness. Witnesses were then called in support of 

 this case. Mrs. Elizabeth Whiting, the Plaintiff's sister, proved the docility and playfulness of the 

 dog, but positively denied that it had ever bitten, or attempted to bite, any person. Her brother 

 had been offered fifteen guineas for the dog a short time before the day on which it was shot. 

 On that day it accidentally escaped from the confinement, in which it had been held, in conse- 

 quence of the threats of the Defendant. It never attempted to bite the Defendant, or his children, 

 although often provoked by the latter, and kicked by the former. This evidence was supported 

 by three other witnesses. 



The Attorney-General addressed the Court and Jury on the part of the Defendant, and con- 

 tended that, in this instance, his client was perfectly justified in the course he had taken, for that he 

 had shot the dog in his own defence. The dog had twice jumped at him, and he had beaten him off; 

 he was jumping at him a third time, when he fired and thereby prevented the consequence, which 

 might otherwise have accrued to himself. In proof of this, as well as in support of the case of 

 the Defendant, in general, four witnesses appeared, who stated that, the Defendant was called 

 into the field, by the screams of his daughter, and that in shooting the dog, he acted in his own 

 defence. In the evidence of these persons, however, there was so much prevarication that the 

 Jury, after an impartial and able charge from Mr. Justice Abbott, found a verdict for the 

 Plaintiff damages ff teen guineas costs forty shillings. 



It may be useful to record the law, as laid down by the present Lord Chief Justice, on this 

 trial. He stated distinctly, that the only justification for a man shooting the dog of another, is 

 the necessity of self-defence ; but that necessity must be clear and positive. If, he observed, 

 a man were attacked by a dog, and while the dog was making 1 the attack, he killed him, he would 

 act legally; but if he killed the dog while it v:as running away from him, after having so attacked 

 him, the owner of the dog would be entitled to recover his value. The reason of this distinction, 

 he said, was clear. In the first case, self-defence justified the killing of the dog; but in the 

 second, it did not for the dog had himself retired from the attack, arid the party aggrieved 

 ought then to seek his remedy for whatever injury he may have sustained, at the hands of the 

 owner of the dog. 



