445 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Guildhall, xMay 17. 
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord Chief Justice Erle and Common 
Juries.) 
BRYANT V. TuMMONS. 
This was an action to recover the value of a dog alleged to have been 
killed by the defendant, and also damages for injury to another dog. 
Mr. Joyce and Mr. Talfourd Salter appeared for the plaintiff, and 
Mr. H. Chambers, Q C., for the defendant. 
It appeared that on the 14th of November last the plaintiff was out 
with his dogs, one a greyhound, called “ Old Joe,” and the other a 
brindled lurcher bitch, in Hedon fields, in the neighbourhood of 
Croydon, of which the defendant is farm tenant. The defendant, 
believing the dog to be after his rabbits, fired at the greyhound and 
shot it in the side, and it rolled over, but got up again bleeding. He 
afterwards followed the dogs into an adjacent wood, and, after some 
words with the plaintiff, fired again, wounding the lurcher bitch. The 
defendant was summoned before the magistrates for cruelty to these 
animals in firing at them, and the plaintiff subsequently brought the 
present action against him for the value of the greyhound, which, it 
was alleged, died a few days afterwards of the wounds it had received 
in the side, and also for damages to the brindled lurcher bitch. The 
greyhound was said to be very fast and well bred, and was estimated 
by the plaintiff at £20 value. The case for the defendant was that he 
never shot the dog; and that, if he had injured it when he fired, the 
dog had not died of the wound it received, as it was seen running about 
and leaping over a wall nine feet high, apparently having nothing the 
matter with it, on the morning of the day on which it died ; and it was 
suggested that the plaintiff had himself shot the dog for the purpose of 
this action. Evidence was also called to prove that the plaintiff had 
offered to settle the matter for£l or £2; and also that he had been 
bidden 5s. for the dog, but wanted lOs-, some time before it was 
announced that “ poor old Joe” was dead ; and it was contended that 
the dog was worthless, and the action a trumped up one, which ought 
not to have been brought in a superior court. 
His Lordship having summed up the evidence, 
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages one farthing. 
LAMBETH.—Juxe 11th. 
Edward Smeed, a member of a gang of notorious horse copers, was 
placed at the bar before Mr. Ellioit for final examination, on a charge 
of obtaining £15 by false pretences from Mr. Thomas Holden, coal 
merchant, of No. 7, Trafalgar Street, Walworth. 
