302 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
the alleged value of an Italian greyhound which had died 
whilst under the care of the defendant. 
Mr. IUrne, in opening the case, stated, that whilst the 
plaintiff was absent from home, on the 9th of January, 
a favorite dog, an Italian greyhound, belonging to him, 
took it into its head to jump through a window, by which it 
cut its foot. The servant unadvisedly put the foot in hot 
water, which caused it to bleed profusely, and the dog w r as 
then taken to the defendant. The plaintiff, upon his return, 
w T ent to see the dog, and being much acquainted with dogs, 
at once perceived that the wound was very slight, but the 
defendant suggested that it would be better to allow 7 the dog 
to remain there for a few days, as the wound might open 
again. 
On the Friday following then, Mr. Berry sent for the dog, 
and the defendant sent back an account for “ medicine, 
attendance, and keep of a dog, £2 2s.” 
The plaintiff then went over to the defendant, thinking 
there might be some mistake in what he considered an 
exorbitant charge ; but the defendant insisted that that was 
his charge, and he would not take £1 Is., which the plaintiff 
offered him. The plaintiff also offered to refer the matter to 
some other party skilled in such matters, and if he found 
that the defendant’s charge w r as not exorbitant, he would 
pay it ; but the defendant refused to be bound by such a 
condition, or to give up the dog unless he received his £2 2s. 
Subsequently, not being able to get the dog, the plaintiff 
sued the defendant in the County Court for it, and then the 
defendant sent in a further claim of 5s. per w r eek for keeping 
the dog, making together £4 4s. for the dog. This was 
refused, and ultimately the dog died whilst under the care of 
the defendant. 
A post-mortem examination was made, and the dog was 
found to have died from excessive cold acting upon the heart. 
Margaret Thomas , a domestic servant in the employ of the 
plaintiff, said she took the dog to the defendant’s, when he 
said it had been badly cut, and had better remain there for a 
day or two. When she w T ent to complain of the charge 
which the defendant had made, the latter said it was his 
usual charge, and he would take no less. 
The Plaintiff stated that he had offered the defendant a 
guinea for the treatment of the dog, and he thought that w 7 as 
very ample remuneration. He demanded the dog, but the 
defendant refused to give it up unless the two guineas were 
paid. lie paid 27 s. for the dog when it was a c£ pup,” about 
SI years ago, at Halifax, in Yorkshire; and about three 
