May 7, 1891.] 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



SIB 



gi^en as to tlie accounts and management of the clnb, whether 

 he was justified in ao doing, and whel^her what he published was 

 r'jhliihed honestly in the belipf of the truth of the publication, 

 ind for meritorious, just and proper curia. 



As I hiive already st.i ted to ynu. tlu-re must be a publication, 

 there must be a making public nf the written matter, and that 

 publicatioTi, I bave already told you, may be raade by reading 

 the alleged libelous matter t" another peraon, or by Rhowing it to 

 asotber person, or Ijy circulatiue if; anfl it is here ciiarfccd that 

 the mode or method that tbc dcfcuciani elected ia pubUshiuK the 

 alleged lit el, as thp people claim, was that it should be published 

 in this paper, llie Fouest and Stri^am. 



In this ease, tlie detendaui says that lie is the author of the ar- 

 ticle complained of. So you will not have any ditllculty on that 

 question— that he wrote that article. The statements iu that 

 article are his. and they emanated from Mm, hut it is claimed, on 

 the part of the defense, that they are not libelous, and that is 

 one of the questious in this case that you have eot to determine. 



Here is what you have got to determine, prentlemeD; It is con- 

 ceded by the defendant tliat he wrote this article. Did he publish 

 it? If he did, wa.s it libelous, is i t a libel, was it mnlieious? Or, 

 is it true, and wns it published with a good intent] and purpose? 

 If you eoucludc that it was uoi. h libel, tben, of course, yon will 

 acquit the defcudaut. If you shall say upon the exddence that it 

 wns true, and was publislied for a good purpose, then you may ac- 

 qnil tliis detendant. But, if vou shall say niion the evidence that 

 it was ;i mnlicious b'bel, puWisbeii ^^■it li n AVrongful intent, Idien 

 you will do iu this case as you shall determine. 



To crirtbie you to determine whether it is m libel or not, you must 

 cous'dcr rlic la w, and thou take into consideration all the circum- 

 stances uf tlic case, and the intent with which the act was done, 

 determine, upon the whole evidence, whether the act done be or 

 be not Within tljc meaning of the law. 



"Upon every indirtment for libel the jury have a ritrht to judge, 

 not only of the fact of the puldicatiott, and the ti'ulh of the inu- 

 endoes, but of the intent and tendency of the, paper, and. whether 

 it be a libel or not: and, in short, of tho whole matter put in Issue 

 upon such indictment or inform^ tinn." 



"Asa libel is a defamatory ptiblioatinn, made with a malicious 

 intent, the truth or falsehood of the charge may in many cases be 

 a very material and pertinent consideraiion w'th the jury, in 

 order to ascertain that iuteut. There can be no doubt that it is 

 competent for the defendant to rebut the presumption of malice, 

 drawn from the fact of publication; and it is in consonance with 

 the general theory of evidence, and the dictates of justice, that 

 the defendant should be allowed to avail himself of every fact 

 and cirearastance that may serve t" repel that presumption. And 

 what can be a more important circumsiauce than the truth of the 

 charge, to determine the goodness of the motive in making it. if 

 it be a charge against the comi)etency or purity of a character in 

 pitblic trust, or of a candidate for pitblic favor, or of a charge of 

 actions in which the community have an interest, and are deeply 

 concerned?" 



You may say that this reading may not have application to this 

 case tiecause this is not a charge made against a public officer or 

 a candidate for public favor, or a matter in which the community 

 are deeply concerned. But, gentlemen, these men were all mem- 

 bers of the same association. It is claimed, on the part of the 

 people, that the. defendant had no right to the information asked 

 for by blni. I shall leave you to determine, upon the proof, 

 whether he had or not. It was au association, certainly, in which 

 all those c:innected with it were interested, and therefore you 

 may ask yotirselves whether the defendant was justified in the 

 statement that he made, whether the charges made are true, be- 

 cause, as I have said, if you flud them to be true, it is something 

 that you bave the right to take into consideration in considering 

 the defense. 



New, that does not mean that every time a person may know 

 something true to aaother'a disadvantage that he has the right 

 to puldish that matter, hut it means that where persons are asso- 

 ciated together and bave a common interest, and where there 

 may be something connected with the affairs in which they are 

 so commonly interested which should be criticised, no fault can 

 he found with just criticism. But if it be followed by publication 

 then you may ask ycurKelves: Was there malice in the publica- 

 tion? If the pu>\lication be alone among those joint ly interesied, 

 that is one thing; hut if it be a general pablieaiJon, a widespread 

 publication to the entire world, even to those who have no inter- 

 est or concern ia ihe matter, then you may ask yourselves was 

 the doing that m"»Iice, <vas it malicious and does it come within 

 the section of the Code? 



"To shut out wholly the inquiry into the truth of the accusa- 

 tion is to abridge essentially the means of defense. It is to weaken 

 the arm of the defendant and to convict him by means of a pre- 

 sumption, which he might easily de?troy by proof that the charge 

 was true, and that, considering the nature of the accusation, the 

 circumstances and lime under which it was made, and the situa- 

 tion of the person implicated, his motive could have been no 

 other than a pure and disinterested regard for the public welfare. 

 At the same time this doctrine will not go to tolerate libels upon 

 private character, or the circulation of charges for seditious and 

 wicked ends, or to justify exposing to the public eye one's per- 

 sonal defects or misfortunes. The public have no concern with, 

 nor are they injured by such information, and the truth of the 

 charge wou'd rather aggravate than lessen the baseness and evil 

 terideucy of the publication. It will, therefore, still remain in 

 every case, a, question for the jury, what was the intent and 

 tendency of the paper, and tmw far the truth in the given ease 

 has been used tor commendable or abused for malicious pur- 

 poses." 



That brings me, gentlfmen. to this suggestion: criticism, fair, 

 just and proper criticism, is no offense. A person is entitled to 

 criticise the acts of another, and he is especially entitled t''> criti- 

 cise them within fair and reasonable rules, if he he au officer of 

 an association with which he is connected, or if he he a public 

 officer. 



I have been asked by the defendant to charge you especially as 

 to a certain doctrine as to the law, laid down in a work uoon the 

 crime of Hhel, and, indeed, it seems to he the law, and therefore I 

 shall charge it as he ask,=. 



"As criticism is opiuion, it can never be primarily material to 

 inquire into its justness. Thp right to criticise implies the right 

 to judge for one's self of the jastriess of criticism. It would seem 

 to be hut a delusion to say one has the right to criticise, provided 

 the cr'tioism be just. The justness or unjustness can never be 

 more than matter of opinion. The test always is, was the criticism 

 bona fide? It is like the case of "ue writing concerning the sanity 

 of another. The test of the justification is not, was the statement 

 such as a man of sound fense would have made? But was it the 

 honest o"nviction of the publi.5hei? Although that was a case of 

 comment or giving au opinion or criticism, it was, iu fact, a criti- 

 ois'u concerning the person, and found its justification, not in its 

 being a criticism, but beciuse the publication was made to protect 

 the iutere'^t of another. When it is argued that the right to 

 criticise rests upon the interest which the oommuni ty genet ally 

 may have in the sui'ject of the criticism it is a coufusion of two 

 difiierent and distinct rights. The community are no more in- 

 terested in the person or reputation of any one individual 

 than in the person or reputation of any other member of so- 

 ciety. Nor is there any foundation for the distinction sometimes 

 attempted to be drawn betv.een the public and the private char- 

 acter or sianding of an individual. In this country everything, 

 either by speech or by writing may be discussed for the benefit of 

 the ijublic." 



If discussion has been nothing more than that which was fair, 

 temperate and calm, then such a person would not be a proper 

 subject for au action for libel. 



"Every individual has a right to comment on those acts of 

 public mtju which cor ceru him as a subject of the realm, if he do 

 not make his couimeutary a cloak for malice and slander. There 

 is, indeed, a material distinction between publications relating to 

 public and ro private persons, as regards the question whether 

 they be libelous." 



But the defendant claims that the pablication complained of is 

 not libelous, because, as he claims, the article was written against 

 a thing, to wit. tbe association or club, and noc as against the in- 

 dividual, and I charge you tliat it is the law that, if it be written 

 against a corporation, and not agaiust the indl\'iduMl, thai the 

 article is not libelous, because it is charged here tliat be libeled 

 the individual, and that, for the purposes of this case, if you shall 

 find that it was a libel against the association, arid was no libi 1 

 agaiust the complainant in this case, then the defendant cannot 

 be convicted. 



Let us see what the learned writers have said upon that subject. 



Mr. Peshall.: If Your Honor please, would you allosv me to in- 

 terrupt yon? 1 go a little further than that, and say also that it 

 was criticism, of a report, published in the same paper, to the 

 public. 



The Court: Of course, gentlemen, there is another doctrine 

 that applies in this case. Every man has the right to defend his 

 character agaiust false aspersions. It is a duty which he oives to 

 himself and his family, and it is claimed in this case by the de- 

 fendant that Ids characior was a-eail-;d or attacked, and that 

 what he wrote was t^y vray of defense. It is for you to say whether 

 that contention is warranied in this case by thp evidence or not. 



That ia his claim. It is a fact in the case to be determined by 

 you. Every man has a right to defend himself when attacked, 



whether it be by an assailant who attacks him on the highway, 

 with the intention to do him injury or wrong— be can then de- 

 fend. Equally, if his character be assailed, a person has a tight 

 to defend. But lie must defend wir.hln the legal rules, he must 

 defend within the legal bounds. He is not permitted to commit 

 an overt act upon his own part, or go further than to meet or repel 

 the attack on him. It is a question for the jury to dcterniine, in 

 any t;iveu case, how far he can co or if he has gone further than 

 he 'should have grme. He must judge when he writes his article, 

 how frr he must go. and it is for the jury to say. when he writes 

 an article or let ter, if he has gone further than to merely defend 

 an attack on himself. 



First, was there an attack upon him; and, second, if there was, 

 was the article written in defense; and. third, did the article go 

 beyond the bounds necessary to defend? These are questions for 

 the jury. 



"Communications, therefore, made in fair self-defense are priv- 

 ileged. If a man is at tacked in a written article, he may wri te 

 and rebut the charges, and he may at the BHine time retort, where 

 the retort is a necessary part of the rtefcnao, or fairly arises out of 

 the charges made against him. A person who begins a.^'-ar by 

 writing cannot subsequentlv cnme into court and complain that 

 he has had the worst td the flgbt. But if the person who undtr- 

 lakes to defend starts out with new matter, and undertakes to 

 defend, then it is a question for the jury, dep^niliuK upnn tbe cir- 

 cumstances of the case, to determine \yhether he has gone beyond 

 the leg il bounds of self defense. Certainly he can then do noth- 

 ing to defend." 



I have been also asked by the defendant to call your attention 

 to one or two otiier principles laid down in the books, and, as 

 it is ihe law, it, is my duty to charge you as requested. 



"Tbe trround of the criminal proceeding in ca.-es of this kind is 

 the public mischief which libels arc calculat"d to o eate in alien- 

 ating tbe minds of the people from religion and good morals _ ren- 

 dering them hostile to the government a.nd tnagiHtracy of the 

 country, and where particular individuals tire atltickiid in cati-ing 

 such irritation in their minds as may induce them to coiuiuil a 

 breach of the peace." 



And in that connecrion, gentlemen, you will recollect that one 

 of the reasons that slander upon the character is brought within 

 the purview of the criminal law is because the learned writers say 

 that it has a tendency to bring about conduct which may lead to 

 a breach of tbn public peace. 



Aeain, I am asked to charge you: , 



"I'hat every individual has a right to comment on these acts of 

 pu>^lic men which concern him as a subject of realm, if he do not 

 make his commentary a cloak for malice and slander." 



I charge _j on that, of course: it is the law. 



Now, gentlemeu, a single suggestion, and I shall h ave this case 

 to you, for you to say just, what you think of ibis publication. 

 We cannot dismiss it because we may think that f he mat ter may 

 not be very material to the pu''lic, one way or the other. It is here 

 under the color of law, it ia here under color of right, and w« have 

 to determine it on the evidence. The length of t irae that this case 

 has taken to submit to you calls your attention also to the fact 

 that, if through any mis'rial you should not determine this case, 

 again the same matter may be perchance required to be reduced 

 in a court of justice, to the end that another panel such as yours 

 may determine the question at issue. There seems to be much pf 

 interest in the question involved in this case, hut with that you 

 have nothing to do whatever. The quesiicui that you are to de- 

 termine is: Is this a malicious libel, written for a wrongful pur- 

 pose, or is it matter privdeged, is it true and justified, printed for 

 a just and proper reason? 



1 bave intentionally refrained, gentlemen, from going into the 

 figures in this case. The learned gentlemen on the other side of the 

 bar tells you that he has never been able to ascertain what those 

 figures mean, and says he does not know now. 1 observed that the 

 learned District Attornej" avoided any allusion to the figures iu 

 this case, and I, of course, cannot divine what course you will 

 take as to the figures In this case, but it may be a material fact 

 for you to de'ermioe in this ease— were those reports, as rendered 

 by that secretary and treasurer, true reports, were they just, 

 honest reports, such as a person in his situation should render, or 

 were they justlj' or unjustly attackeo? 



Whether you shall, in oiTler to determine that, go through these 

 entire figures or not, is a matter for jou, but were the figures — 

 because it is the figures in the accounts, sometimes coming iu one 

 f.'irm or in another— much was said about this sttid-book and this 

 $l,228.:i8, aud whatever— fre^m different sources it was claimed 

 tbat the fiuures came— but were the reports maile by that seereiary 

 and treasurer a just, honest statement, of uis Bt^wardsbip of that 

 cluh? The defendant says no. He says that he has always 

 claimed, and would show in a court of justice, that they were not 

 true, and would show the trulh of the allegation^ made uy him in 

 the article that he says he was the author of, and it i.s a question 

 for you to say, was ho the publishpr. 



Now, has be shown thai the Bgures were not true? Has he 

 shown the truth of the article which he savs was written by him? 

 As you shall determine those questions you may be enabletl to de- 

 termine the main question, as to tbe euilt or innocence of this 

 defendant under this accusation ot libel. 



Mr. Wilmerdiug tells you that after the article was written, 

 this defendant i>rought the paper to him and showed the article 

 to him. Mr. Wilmerdiug tells you that be read it aud thai he 

 advised this defendant agiinst this pu'ilication, and he sava that 

 tne article was an article addressed to the newspaper, the Forest 

 AND Sthe.\m, and tbat the defendant then and there declared to 

 htm thai he was gointa: to publish that article. It is for you to say 

 whether you believe Mr. Wilmerding. Has his statement in that 

 regard been disputed or questioned? And you will call to your 

 mind, you will call to your aid, when you come ti determine the 

 ouestlou whether this was tne defendant's publication, the tes- 

 timony of Mr. Wilmerding, if you believe it. Treat it as you will. 

 He is a witness in the case. If you think bo does not tell tJie 

 truth you ha ve a right to say so. But if you believe that state- 

 ment is true you may base such findings upon it as you may deter- 

 mine to base upon it. Y'^ou may give it such weight as you think 

 it is enii'led to. 



Mr. Anthony tells you in his testimony that he saw the article 

 at the time of its publication and that he had a conversation 

 with the defendant thereafter, and that he said to the defendant, 

 "You did what you ihreatened," and tbe d-fendant said that he 

 had published the article, and that he proposed to follow it up to 

 the bitter end and prove the truth of the publication. 



When you shall ask yourselves whether the defendant was the 

 publisher, whether he published It, you m.ay also call to your 

 aid the testimony of Mr. Anthony. Did Mr. Anthony tell the 

 truth ou the witness stand? Y'ou can ask yourselves that ques- 

 tion, because every witness puts himself in that posilioii when he 

 goes upon the wbnoss stand that the jury before whom he goes 

 shall determine whether he is a truthful witness or not. 



First, then, you must come to the conclusion that the defendant 

 wrote the article because he said that he did. It: you shall come 

 to the conclusion that he published it. then, was it malicious, was 

 it a malicious publication? And I may say to you that malice 

 may sometimes be presumed from the publication of tbe article 

 Itself. But you must take into consideration the article and all 

 the surrounding circumstances in asking yourselves whether it 

 was malicious. 



It; is claimed that it was a malicious article, and that it affected 

 the character of this complainant, because it is said that the 

 article charged that the reports made were false and fraudulent; 

 false, because they were not true; fraudulent, because they had 

 been made with the intention to deceive. You bave the right, 

 gentlemen, to lake into consideration in this case the position 

 which complainant occupied iu that club, as its treasurer and sec- 

 retary, the manner in which he handled its moneys and finances, 

 his method and mode of earning a living as secretary and treas- 

 urer, upon a salary, in tbat club. Were the words defamatory, 

 were they malicious, were they published with a malicious intent, 

 and was there a design to injure, was the effect of such publica- | 

 tion to ir jiire the coihplainaut in his busini'ss? | 



I shall 1' ave it to you to say whether cbe efi'ect would be to injure 

 the iu(ii\ddual or tbe club alone; and, in considering That, you hii\ e 

 the right to consider the position that it is conceded fh's complaic- 

 ant occupied in that club as an employee, at a salary— a salaried 

 officer earning, as he has told you, S125 or iR150 a month, if his 

 statemsut be True— and you shall say whether it is or not— but an 

 officer, at all events, in the receipt ef compensation — were those 

 words calculated to injure him, and were they published with 

 intent and design? 



"In all cases of libel, where a statement is published which is 

 libelous the law presumes the publication to be malicious, until 

 the contrary is shown." 



I' is for you to sav, gentlemen, on the whole evidence, whether 

 this was a false and malicious publication, or whether it was a 

 true and just publication, aud one tliat should bave been pub- 

 lished for just" and lawful and proper ends. You aie the judges 

 of the law and the fads, and ma.\ rectuire proof, not only of 'lie 

 publication, but of its falsehood, aud that it was m-tliciously 

 made. 



Upon tdiis whole case, gentlemen, I am going to submit it to you 

 now for your determination. 

 Was this a libel or not? 



Is this defendant guilty or not guilty of crime? 



Y'ou may find one of two verdicts— guilty or not guilty. 



One other word, gentlemen. 



This defendant did not take the witness stand in bis own behalf. 



Nor was he obliged so to do. 



Our statute says thai the fact tbat a witness does not take the 

 stand in bis own hehall shall furnish no presumption as against 

 him. No presumption, rhen, is to be taken as agaiust a defendant 

 who does not take the witness stand in his own behalf. He has 

 the right to sit at the bar and say, "Prove your accusation against 

 me." "He has the right to stand nut'e if he sees fit, aud wait for 

 proof, and say, "You are to take no presumption against me by 

 reason of tiial." 



If, upon this whole case, gentlemen, you shall have a reasonable 

 doubt as tf) the guilt, of the defendant, the defendant is entitled to 

 tbe benefit of that doubt, and to an acquittal at your bands. 



Now, what is a. reasonable doubt? 



Wucli a doubt as the evidence has generated in your minds. It 

 ia not a doubt that vou are to inject. It is a dtmbt that isborn oi 

 file evidence itself, a.nd if, after a careful examination of the evi 

 deuce itself, a comparison of Ihe evidence among yourselves, a 

 full, fair and imparl ial examination of the evidence, you should 

 be in doubt, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. So it is as 

 to all the questions in the case. It there should be doubt, under 

 the circumstances that I bave sugge-. tcd, you must solve that 

 doubt in favor of the defendant and a'' quit bim. 



But if after you have examined tbe evidence thomughly it shall 

 leave you with a, firm belief, au abioing conviction, a reason- 

 able satisfaction that the case against tbe defendant is made out, 

 thi ii yon iiave no reasonable doubt, because you cannot be at the 

 same time in a state of reasonable doubt and of reasonable satis- 

 faction. 



Now. gentlemen, I hope you will determine this case uninflu- 

 enced by any ext raucous circumstances, uninfluenced by sym- 

 pathy, tin'nflneuced by the position of thepers'ins concerned on 

 the one hand or the oiher, or by a. feeling that the laws of the 

 State bave been viol;i,fed and that somebody ough' to be pun- 

 ishcfl, unions the evidcucp satisfies you that the defendant has 

 btoughr himself within the ]a\v aimi the charge and trial here. 

 Treat t his defendant, fBiid\-. lie is an intelligent man. and he has 

 Blood at this bartoiilcrd his ' ase bef'Tre you, and he is entitled 

 to fair treatment at your linud Treat bim fairly, but give him 

 no more than any other defendant who may come to the bar Is 

 entitled to. This case should stand before you just like any other 

 case. If this defendant is guilty, your verdict I'Ught to say so. If 

 on the contrary on the evidence you do not believe that he is guilty 

 you will say not guilty. 



I leave the case to you for your determination. 



Mr McTnttrk: I ask if your Ilnuor please, that tbe .iiiry 

 mav be allowed to take the article in evidence -with them. 

 The Coukt: Yes. What is ia evidence, they may have by 



consent. 



Mr. PeshAll: One more thing. It is for the jury to 

 deteriuine whether that applies to tbe club or tbe individual 

 —that article. 



TriE CoiTi?T: Certainly. I bave said that, and I say it now. 

 The jury may take with them anything tbat they desire that 

 is in evidence. 



Mr. Peshall; I desire also that the article shall be given 

 to the jury which was written and published— the tWo 

 letters. 



The Coprt: Tbey are in evidence? 



Mr. Pesiiat,!,: Yes, .sir, liere fcbey are — in my book. 



Mr McIxtyre: Then take them out of your book. I do 

 not propose to send yonr book into the jury room. 



The C(.)Ui^t: If those letters are in evidence, tbe .jury may 

 take them. You may retire, gentlemen. 



Me. Peshall: I will tear the page out of the book. Here 

 it is. 



A STRAIGHTFORWARD CHALLENGE. 



Editor Forcfit aiul Stream: 



I have read Mr. Laid law's letter in your issue of April 30, 

 and as that geutlemau does not de.sire newspaper discussion 

 I wLll.endeavor to meet him on one of his own three grounds — 

 fun, money or marbles. I am a bt.rsines.s mhu, with no tiiue 

 for fun or raarhles, but with a little money, and I inclose 

 •SlOO to be covered before your isstte of next \A eek,as a wager 

 tbat my bitch Am.azeinent can beat Oban under one or 

 move official judges of the American Spaniel Club, to be 

 mutually agreed upon, each party to send his dog for inspec- 

 tion when and where called upoti to do so by tbe jutige or 

 judges selected, expenses to be paid by the loser, tlie judge 

 or judges to find their own handlers, and neither owner to 

 be present. I mean this as an honest acceptfince of Mr. 

 Laidlaw's offer. 1 am prepared to abide by the judges' de- 

 cision, and will shut up if I am wrong; but I believe iu fair 

 criticism iu the public press, and have no doubt this test 

 will prove tbat my comments were fully justified by the 

 facts. 



I desire it to be known that the criticism which I have 

 sent for this issue over my signatui-e, was written and 

 mailed before receipt of tbe isstte containing Mr. Laidlaw'a 

 letter. 



In conclusiiDn, I answer tbe charge as to my "peculiar" 

 letter by stating that, as appears ou its face, it was in an- 

 swer to a similar one from Mr. Laidhaw hiiaiself, and that it 

 has never been repudiated by Mm, G. Bell. 



ToHONTO, Can., May 4, 



[We have received a lengthy letter and report on the 

 spaniels at Cleveland show from Mr. Geo. Bell, m which be 

 takes Mr. Nelles to ta.sk oq his judging, both at Chicago 

 and Cleveland, Its publication will do no good, aud will 

 only tend to mutual recriminations with whlcla the Forest 

 AXt) Stre.\-M doe.s not wish to till its pages. If sooie ot our 

 mauv cocker breeders would only give us now and then de- 

 scriptions of their do.s;s. their experiences iu breeding them 

 to their view of the staudani and acconats of the many en- 

 joyable days they must have \vitb them in the field, how 

 much more interesting the cocker question would become 

 to the average reader. This antagoiitstn that seems to pre- 

 vail among certain spaniel men, a"nd which is given voice to 

 from time to time in the kennel press, leads to no gooti x^tir- 

 pose, but the reverse. Draft for -sliJii on the Bank of New 

 York received and held subject to Mr. Bell's disposition.] 



AN INTERESTING QUESTION.— New York, May 4 — 

 Editor Fores I and Stream: A few days since a rabid dog 

 passed through my place, biting three of ray dogs, which I 

 have destroyed. I bad three or four other clegs loose at the 

 time, which I do not know for certain if they were bitten or 

 not, no marks of bites showed on them, but as they were play- 

 ing with those bitten at the time it happened, it is possible 

 they may also have been bitten. 1 havethe.se animals securely 

 locked up, and what I desire to learn is how long they should 

 be treated with suspicion ttnd kept confined after the time 

 of being bitten, if they have been? They are all valuable 

 animals, but having a number of children on my place I 

 cannot afford any risks. What do you advise: I might add 

 there is little dottbt of the dog being mad, for after learning 

 where he had been killed I had bim dag up and examined by 

 a veterinary surgeon.— H. N. M. [Unless you can find tbe 

 marks of the teeth there is no danger. Tbe period of in- 

 cubation is from one to five weeks, as a rule, you can there- 

 fore use your own discretion in the matter.] 



DEATH OF MAUD NOBLE —Brockton, Mass.— ^d«or 

 Forest and Stream: I am sorry to inform you that I have 

 lost my Count Noble bitch Maud Noble. "She was down 

 with distemper aud pneumonia set in, and with all our 

 efforts we could not save her. She was bred by E. A, Hight, 

 Lynn, Mass., out of Katie Berwyn, by Count Noble. She 

 was shown in the Bo.ston show, where she contracted dis- 

 temper, and received vbc, Imt three of our most competent 

 judges said she shiuild have been placed higher, aud one said 

 she otiglit to bave won second easy. .She was a litter sister 

 of Blanche Noble, recently purchased by A. M. Tucker, 

 Cbarlestown. I led iny loss most severely, uud think it 

 will be a long time before I find one tbat will fill her place, 

 as she bad showasome great field qualities.— Chaeles H. 

 Leonakd. 



