18 THE SHOOTER'S GUIDE. 



jury to consider was, not what value might nominally 

 be attached to the dogs, as being favourites, but what 

 was their real value; and taking that consideration 

 for their guide, he thought they should give the 

 plantiff a liberal compensation. The jury returned 

 a verdict, )ne hundred pounds damages. 



A second action between the said parties for a 

 similar loss took place in 1809 : it was damages on 

 account of the defendant's keeper having shot and 

 killed the plantifFs dog ; the plea was, " that the 

 defendant, Lord Cawdon, was lord of a manor at Rid- 

 welly, in the county of Carmarthen, and that the 

 other defendant was his lordship's gamekeeper : 

 that the plaintiff's dog came upon that manor and 

 was following a hare, and might then and there have 

 killed the said hare ; that the gamekeeper shot the 

 dog, as it was lawful for him to do/' To this plea 

 there was a demurrer. Lord Ellenborough, by way 

 of showing the absurdity of the plea, said, "I think 

 the plea does not jus! ify the killing by the game- 

 keeper ; is it to be enaured that a man's dog, or any 

 other animal, shall be shot because he follows a hare, 

 without stating in the justification of killing that 

 dog, it was necessary to kill it; or that the dog be- 

 longed to an unqualified person, and was pursuing 

 game unlawfully ? All this, or some of this, was 

 surely necessary to be stated. If there be a precedent 

 for such a plea as this, it is a precedent against com- 

 mon reasoning and common sense, and the sooner it 

 is overturned the better." Judgment for the plaintiff. 



