Aug. 18, 1894.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
14S 
Watkins Boy sot him self so clus to her an I thought 
then I seed him take some sort o thing out o his shirt 
busum and bide it in the Pile before Cindey an when she 
cum tew it he wus the fust one tew her. She's a right 
Peart Gal an my old wouman loud tother day Cindy 
would make some one a rite Peart wife, as she was a 
smart band at Kooltin Biskets and Corn dodgers. 
If this is not tew much ov a Story its all tru yew may 
Put it in yewr Paper which is the best that can be got of 
its kind in the world, we air not Regular Subskribers but 
we goes to Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Tom Jonson's ever Sun- 
day mornin an Buys it thar an if it is a day late yew 
shuld hear the Boys Growl, and then they would make 
all kind of talk about washouts and wreks but it makes 
us all feel good when we gits a day or tew later, 
Yewers in haste, Obiga Smears. 
P. B. — Oh yes I forgot that Joneses boy said that Both 
Smith an his farm hand loud that thar Tarpon had jumpt 
at least G yards up before hit draped on the Boat. 
Rennet 
The Bell-Martin Case. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
In reply to Mr. Bell's article in your issue of Aug. 4, 1 will 
comment upon such portions of it as I consider worthy of 
consideration, give the public a true history of the deal with 
Bell, also the. decision of the advisory committee of the 
American Kennel Club, and leave it to "the public as to the 
true character of this transaction. I have not the papers, 
letters and telegrams that passed between Bell and myself; 
these are with the A. K. C, and I am unable to obtain them, 
consequently I depend to some extent upon my memory. 
Mr. Bell states in his article that I threatened him with legal 
proceedings upon leaving the case to the A. K. C. My 
memory may be at fault, but I am quite positive that I did 
not write that I would sue him until after the decision of 
the A. K. C. last May. Mr. Bell further states: 
I had received an order from Martin, and agreed to ship Blemton 
Consequence and guaranteed that she was in whelp and agreed to 
take her back if she were not so, I made and carried out this bargain 
honestly, and in good faith, as 1 have proved, and am still able to 
prove, if called upon to do so. I sold Blemton Consequence, as T 
thought, I believed her to be in whelp. I had her examined, and I 
Bhipped her in the usual way. I knew that she was in whelp from the 
examination of Mr. C. J. Purroy, and of Mr. H. P. Thomson, secre- 
tary of the Fox-Terrier Club here, and from my own knowledge and 
experience. I understood then, having done this, and the dog being 
shipped at Martin's risk, that I had fulfilled my part of the contract, 
and that I was entitled to the purchase money. 
In Mr. Bell's defense, filed with the A. K. C, be states 
"that Mr. Berino, of New York (I am not sure that I have 
this last name correct. He is a veterinary surgeon) saw 
the dog." In the above extract from his article he states 
that C. J. Purroy saw the dog; now, which one is it, Purroy 
or Berino? 
The bitch arrived here about six days after leaving Toronto 
and I immediately received her at the express company's 
office, and seeing that she was not in whelp put her back in 
the crate and drove to A. R. Rowat, D. V. S He examined 
her and crate and pronounced the bitch not in whelp, nor 
had she had a premature birth recently. He also examined 
her again when her time to whelp had expired and issued a 
certificate to these facts. The express company officials 
stated that if she had whelped on-the road a note, of it would 
have been made by the messenger, and no such memoran- 
dum appeared. The bitch was seen shortly after her arrival 
by Mr. Joseph McLatchie, Mr. A. R. Crowell and Mr. H. W. 
Fores, President Pacific Fox-Terrier Club (this gentleman 
acted as Bell's agent in the exchange of Rejoice for Conse- 
quence, and is an old friend of Bell's), and they all stated 
that the bitch was not in whelp nor had she a premature 
birth recently. 
Mr. Bell further states: "After the sale I was notified by 
Martin that the dog was not and had not been in whelp. 
.Some people might say I should haveaccepted his statement, 
received the dog back and returned his money, but I did not 
know Mr. Martin and I knew no reason why a bona fide sale 
having been made it should not be strictly carried out." 
This is a very lame excuse. If Mr. Bell had taken the 
trouble to write or telegraph Mr. Fores he could have satis- 
fied himself that my statement was true. I have been buy- 
ing dogs from the Eastern States since 1881, have had deal- 
ings with Mr. Arnold Burges of Michigan, during his life- 
time, Mr. J. M. Avent of Hickory Valley, Tenn., Mr. T, 1. 
Ballentine of Peoria, 111., Mr. August Belmont and Mr. 
Edward Kelly of New York, Mr. Frank Wheeler, formerly 
of Canada, and many others. 
Mr. Bell further states: 'After much threatening and 
abuse from Martin he laid the matter before the A, K. C., t he 
charge being that I had sold him a dog, guaranteeing her to 
be in whelp when she was not so." 
I ask Mr. Bell to publish one of my letters that he con- 
siders abusive and allow the public to be the judge of its 
ct) £Ll*flCtj 61* 
Mr. Bell further states: "The A. K. C. decided that the 
charge was not sustained and it was dismissed and I was 
then held to be justified in the course that I had taken." 
Not so fast. Mr. Bell has overreached the facts in his en- 
deavor to right himself with the public. Why did he not 
take more precaution and learn the grounds of his disquali- 
fication. I herewith give the particulars: 
New York, June 28, 1894.— Mr. J. B. Martin, 1323 Page street, San 
Francisco, Cal.: Dear Sir— In reply to your favor of the 22dinst., 
would inform you that the advisory committee of the American Ken- 
nel Club disqualified Mr. Bell upon the charges preferred against him 
by you, The fact that Bell sent you the bitch Rejoice in place of 
Blemton Consequence and knowing that he had done so early in Sep- 
tember, and having taken no steps to rectify the mistake was well 
known by the committee and probably strengthened your charges, 
but was not officially before the committee, and hencedid not figure 
in the case. I can see no reason why the American Kennel Club should 
re-open the case, no appeal having been taken. Yours truly, A. D. 
Lewjs, Acting Secretary. 
The charges alluded to in Mr. Lewis's letter were, guaran- 
teeing the bitch to me in whelp and refusing to take her back 
after she proved not to be so. I wish to state here that I did 
not particularly care for Consequence, I bought her upon the 
strength of Bell's guarantee that she was in whelp to Dusky 
Trap, a dog whom I consider the best sire in the country; 
Consequence is an old bitch, her show days are over, but I 
wanted the pups that I expected she would have, for breed- 
ing and showing purposes. After seeing that she was not in 
whelp I wrote Bell that I would give her full time to pup, 
and if she did not I would return her without cost to him, 
but Bell was so anxious to have this bitch off his hands that 
he telegraphed that he would not receive her and had evi- 
dence that she was in whelp before leaving Toronto. This 
in the face of his guarantee and also a statement from him 
"that Consequence was worth §100, pups or no pups." 
Now we come, to the most interesting part of the contro- 
versy, the discovery by Bell that he sold Rejoice to me in 
place of Consequence. This he knew in the early part of last 
September, according to the statement of W. Wade, of Hul- 
ton. Pa. (one of Bell's defenders), in the Turf, Field and 
Farm last June, and also from other information that I have 
received. The discovery was made at the Toronto show one 
week previous to the filing of my charges against Bell. 
Bell states that he listened to the advice of his solicitors 
not to inform me of the mistake until after the decision of the 
advisory committee. 
Why, at this time there were no charges pending against 
Bell for decision by the advisory committee. I personally 
filed the charges, being in New York, and Bell knew of my 
intention, as I sent him a registered letter from Chicago. 
Mr. Bell further states that his solicitors allowed him to 
communicate privately to me through Mr. Mortimer. Yes, 
that is so, seven months after the mistake in bitches was dis- 
covered the following letter was received by me: 
Hempstead, L. I., April 2, 1894.— Mr. J. B. Martin: Dkab Sir— At the 
request of Mr. Geo. Bell, who paid me a visit yesterday, I write to say 
that he has discovered that the fox-terrier bitch he sent you as Blem- 
ton Consequence is not Consequence at. all, but a hitch by the name 
of Rejoice. The matter came about in this way: Bell expressed a wish 
to see Mr Belmont's terriers and I drove him over there. After look 
ing at the dogs we went to the office where there was hanging a pho- 
tograph of a fox terrier bitch. Bell asked Charlev, Mr. Belmont's 
man, what bitch the picture represented and his reply was Blemton 
Consequence. Bell was very particular in asking all about the peculi- 
arities of Consequence, markings, formation of shoulders, bone, etc., 
etc., and immediately arrived at the conclusion that she was still at 
his kennel in Toronto. H> accounts for the mistake in this way. He 
bought Consequence with several other bitches and Dusky Trap of 
Mr. Granger, of Baltimore, Md., and understood that the evenly- 
marked, black and tan headed bitch was Rejoice and the solid black- 
headed bitch was Consequence. He regrets very much the mistake, 
and says he will forward to you the genuine Consequence, who by the 
way has just been bred to Dusky Trap, if you wili return the other 
bitch and pav all express charges. I am writing this at Bell's request 
because he left Hempstead this morning expecting to catch the train 
for Toronto and would not be able to write you before reaching home. 
It seems to tpm the blunder was a very natural one under the circum- 
s r ances, and I personally hope that you may look at it in this light. 
With kindest regards, Yours very trulj , Jas. Mortimer. 
The mistake was Mr. Bell's. Still, in the bigness of his 
heart he offers to exchange Consequence for Rejoice, if I will 
pay all express charges: expecting me to pay for his mistake. 
I declined the offer. A few words about the express charges. 
Bell shipped Rejoice in a crate heavy enough to send gold in. 
The result was, charges to the sum of $17.50, paid by me. 
When he sent Consequence out at his expense the charges 
were $6.50. She came in a very light crate. 
Now here we have a statement from Bell in Mr. Mortimer's 
letter that he (Bell) discovered the mistake in bitches in 
April. Which are we to believe; was it in September or 
April? 
I will ask another question. How could Bell's attorneys 
advise him to communicate to me through Mr. Mortimer 
when this letter was sent before Bell would have had time to 
consult with his attorneys, as he was at Hempstead, N, Y., 
and stated to Mr. Mortimer that he had just made the dis- 
covery of the wrong identity of the bitches? 
Bell undoubtedly knew that I had Rejoice early in Septem- 
ber last, yet he kept me in ignorance of this for seven months. 
He would have allowed me to sell pups from Rejoice as 
being from Consequence and exhibit Rejoice in the challenge 
class as Consequence (as he says he did at Indianapolis). 
Fortunately for me, nothing like the above occurred. Upon 
receiving Mr. Mortimer's letter I did prefer additional 
charges against Bell, basing them upon this letter, but, as 
will be seen from Mr. Lewis's letter, they were not con- 
sidered in the decision against Bell. 
After the decision of the advisory committee I consulted a 
lawyer as to my rights in the matter. He stated that as 
Mr. Bell had contracted to deliver me Blemton Consequence, 
guaranteed in whelp in July, 1893, and having failed to do 
so within a reasonable time, I was entitled to the return of 
the purchase money and expenses incurred, and to return 
Rejoice to him. I wrote Bell accordingly upon May 18, 1894, 
and did not receive a reply until June 10, whereas, if a reply 
had been sent forthwith it would have reached me by 
May 29. 
In this letter of Bell's solicitors to me was the following 
statement, "That the two bitches were of equal value, and 
that I was not damaged at all by the mistake and conse- 
quently can have no claim whatever against our client." 
How can they reconcile this statement with the one in his 
article, namely: "My solicitors told me that he (Martin) had 
a right to sue for the money, and that he would demand it, 
which he afterward did by letter threatening action. . I was 
in hopes that he would content himself with asking for de- 
livery of Consequence, but when he made his claim for the 
money and was told I would be obliged to pay it, I adver- 
tised both Consequence and Rejoice for sale, supposing that 
Rejoice would be returned home, and I would have both dogs 
on my hands." 
For eleven months I had been deprived of my rights, and 
at this late day he expected I would return Rejoice and allow 
him the bitch and the money both, and when they were dis- 
posed of he would again in the bigness of his heart forward 
the money to me. 
Yes, Mr. Bell's solicitors did offer to exchange Consequence 
for Rejoice in the letter of June 5, which was eight and a 
half months after the wrong identity of the bitches was 
learned by Bell, one month after the decision of the A. K. C, 
and after a demand made by me, and in this letter they ap- 
plied such terms as, "When you wrote your letter of 18th of 
May its object was blackmail and it was written for the pur- 
pose of extorting money from Mr. Bell," etc. I will not 
comment upon this unwarrantable attack upon me, but I 
will ask these solicitors why, if they considered this extortion 
and blackmail, did they advise Bell that he would be obliged 
to pay the claim made by me, as appears by Bell's own admis- 
sions in his article? 
I wrote,_accepting the offer if it included express charges 
paid on Consequence to San Francisco and Rejoice to Toronto. 
Bell's solicitors replied that if I would turn over Rejoice and 
her pup (the only one alive of the one litter she had here upon 
Jan. 22, 1894) to Mr. Fores, president Pacific Fox-Terrier Club, 
they would ship Consequence. I wrote, declining to turn the 
pup over, and asked them to point out in their letter offering 
the exchange, or my acceptance, any mention of the pup; also 
if it was expected that I would allow Bell all the produce of 
Consequence since July, 1893, and also this one from Re- 
joice. 
Now, as to my advertisement in the American Field, 
warning intending purchasers that Consequence was my 
property and Rejoice in my kennel. Mr. Bell, without any 
notice to me, advertised these bitches for sale in the Ameri- 
can Field of June 2, 1894, my letter claiming the purchase 
money should, in the ordinary course of the mail, have been 
in his hands on May 23, and neither he nor his solicitors 
answered it until June 5, the letter reaching me June 10. I 
inserted the advertisement above mentioned both to protect 
myself and the public. I ask Bell and his solicitors how 
could he give a title to either bitch before this matter was 
settled ? 
Mr. Bell further states "that I had a bitch of equal value 
in Rejoice and had been breeding from her and making 
money out of her from beginning to end." Mr. Bell priced 
Rejoice to me at $75 and Consequence at §100. Does he con- 
sider -$25 difference equal value? Now as to the money I have 
made out of Rejoice, why does not Mr. Bell inquire of his 
agent, Mr. Fores, before he makes such a statement. Re- 
joice had only one litter (three in number) on this coast, one 
died in the nest, one at 2J. 2 months old in my possession and 
one is alive and unsold. 
Mr. Bell says "he was blowing hot and cold claiming the 
money and the dog both, and at the same time fuming and 
blustering in the papers and among his friends in such a way 
that one would have thought he had never had a dog at all 
from me and had paid $100 for nothing," 
I wrote Bell May 18, claiming the money and he, without 
immediately replying, advertised the two bitches for sale. I 
ask in all fairness what course should I have pursued under 
the circumstances? 
I did offer to keep Rejoice if be would refund the ISp dif- 
ference in the price of the two bitches, but Bell declined. I 
did this because Rejoice was in season, and I desired to have 
some pups from ber for next year's shows on this coast, as she 
and Reefer nicked well together, and I also knew that Con- 
sequence was not due in season until October next. The pro- 
longing of the matter mentioned by Bell was on account of 
reasons hereinbefore stated, and which were altogether his 
fault. 
Mr. Bell further states "that Consequence has no pups, 
and I have realized nothing from her " What has become 
of the pups due from her in July, 1893, as a result of her hav- 
ing been bred to Dusky Trap May 24, 1893? Also of her litter 
from the union with Du^ky Trap as mentioned in Mr. Mor- 
timer's letter last April? Will Mr. Bell kindly state what 
bitch is the dam of the young bitch by Dusky Trap, breeder 
unknown, that is- going to beat them all next year? He hav- 
ing bet bats for four with Mr. Robinson of the Woodlawn 
Kennels on this proposition. Also the dam of the young 
bitch by Dusky Trap out of a well-bred bitch (name not 
given), priced to a party in Philadelphia at $25. 
Mr. Bell further states that he suggested that the bitch he 
sent Martin possibly never reached him, but was changed on 
the way." Yes, Mr. Bell and you urged this point "before 
the A. K. C. in your defense of the charges; you did not hesi- 
tate to strengthen your case in this questionable manner, but 
when later on it developed that I did have the wrong bitch, 
you hesitated seven months before you offered to right the 
wrong you did me, and then wanted me to pay fur your mis- 
take. 
Further on Mr. Bell says: "I have refrained from justify- 
ing my conduct in the public print," etc., etc. If Mr. Bell 
believes his article is a satisfactory explanation of his con- 
duct and expects it will in any way justify his queer actions, 
he is welcome to the belief. I am quite certain that the 
public will not coincide with him. 
As to the malice, abuse and slander that Bell mentions, I 
will allow the public, after reading both articles, to be the 
judge of that. 
How often have bitches been pronounced in whelp that 
subsequently did not have pups. This has been the experi- 
ence of several breeders that I have spoken to on the subject. 
Mr. Bell stated in one of his letters before I purchased Con- 
sequence that she was a champion. When and where did 
she win the title? 
I now have Blemton Consequence, after waiting one year. 
She was sold in whelp. I was compelled to accept her un- 
bred or sue Bell for the money, as will be seen from the fol- 
lowing letter: 
Toronto, June 18, 1894.— J. B. Martin. Esq., 1323 Page street, San 
Francisco: Dear Sir— We have not heard from you in reply to our 
letter of 5th June We will wait until the 27th inst., when, unless we 
have heard from you in the meantime, either by letter or by wire, in 
answer to this, we shall consider that you refuse the offer which Mr. 
Bell has made and will advise him to treat Consequence as his own 
property. Yours truly, Macrae & Bykert. 
Now, as will be seen by the above letter and quotations 
from other letters 1 have herewith given, that while these 
solicitors were advising Bell that he would be compelled to 
pay the money claim, they were insisting and writing me 
that I was only entitled to the right bitch. 
Blemton Consequence cost, including all expenses, about 
$140. If Bell or any of his friends want her for $50 they 
can have her. 
Mr. Bell considered his case so weak that he engaged 
solicitors to bolster it np for him. How poorly they have 
succeeded can readily be seen. He also attempts to right 
himself by throwing the blame on them. The advisory com- 
mittee, after a full hearing of the case upon the evidence 
submitted by myself and Bell, disqualified him for one year. 
I now leave the controversy to the decision of the public 
and am confident that the verdict will be in my favor. 
J. B. MARTIN". 
[In view of Mr. Bell's letter, we may now consider this 
incident closed.] 
Flaps from the Beaver's Tail. 
TORONTO, Can. — A meeting of the Executive Committee of 
the Canadian Kennel Club was held here on Aug. 7 to 
receive nominations for the election of officers for the ensuing 
year. The following members were present: Vice-President 
J. S. Williams, Toronto, in the chair; Dr. H. S. Griffin, 
Hamilton; Messrs. R. W. Boyle, C. A. Stone and H. B. 
Donovan, Sec'y-Treas., Toronto, 
Nominations were made as follows: Pres., Dr. J S. Niven. 
London; First Vice-Pres., J. S. Williams, Toronto; Second 
Vice-Presidents, Messrs. H. Gorman, Sarnia; W. H. Thome, 
St. John, N. B.; R. A. Cunningham, Victoria, B. C; P. G. 
Keves, Ottawa. Executive Committee — Dr. H. S. Griffin, 
Messrs. H. Bedlington, A. D. Stewart, Hamilton; T. G. 
Davey, London; R. McEwen, Byron; James Lindsay, J. A. 
Pitt, Montreal; F. S. Wetherall, Compton, Quebec; C. H 
Corbett, Kingston; C. A. Stone, R. W. Boyle and G. B. 
Sweetnain, Toronto; Sec'y-Treas., H. B. Donovan, Toronto. 
There being no other nominations these were declared elected. 
The names of Hon. Senator Sanford, as Patron, and R. 
Gibson, as Hon. Pres., stand as before, election not being 
annual. 
The secretary was instructed to cast one ballot for the 
following new members: W. Vipond, Montreal, proposed 
by J. A. Pitt; L. A. Klein, Black Lake, Quebec, proposed 
by F. S. Wetherall; Leslie H. Gault, A. F. Gault, Montreal, 
and A. H. Fowlds, Hastings, proposed by H. B. Donovan. 
It was decided to hold the annual meeting on Wednesday, 
Sept. 12, at 8 P. M., and an executive committee meeting 
the previous evening at same time. The discussion on the 
inadvisability of changing Rule 8 of Constitution was 
deferred to the next meeting, when it is hoped a fuller 
attendance will result. 
Mr. P. Hart, Belleville, has bought a smooth bitch, by 
Scottish Leader, which is to come out at Toronto. 
We have few Dandies in Canada and will badly miss 
Kristy, a winner at the Toronto show, which died recently 
in pupping. 
Mr. A. J. Groves, Toronto, has sold his whole kennel of 
St. Bernards, some twelve or fourteen, including the im- 
ported Lord Dalhousie, to Mr. FredT. Miller, Trenton, Ont., 
a new enthusiast. 
Mr. L. A. Klein, of the Venlo Farm Kennels, Black Lake, 
Que., writes me that his new dachshund dog Puck has come 
safely to hand in Spratts' charge, after a voyage of thirty- 
five days. Though looking a bit battered, Mr. Klein says he 
is highly pleased with him and considers him the finest one 
he has seen for some time He will be shown at Toronto 
with a number of others from the same kennels. His pair 
of Dane puppies are coming over in the s.s Spain. 
H. B. Donovan. 
Owners of dogs in England are compelled under the 
Rabies Act, to give notice to the authorities of the existence 
of a rabid dog, or of the -possession of any animal that had 
been bitten by a supposed rabid dog. One noted breeder has 
just been fined twice for not reporting that his dogs had 
been bitten by a bull-terrier that had shown signs of rabies. 
This owner had three of his dogs destroyed by the local 
authorities, among them champion Mariner, the Newfound- 
land; he claimed $600 for them, but on the case being sub- 
mitted to arbitration he had to be content with $125. 
