OBITUARY. 
688 
merriment in tlie court. Plaintiff said that he would not have taken fifty 
pounds for the dog. Three other witnesses were called by Mr. Haynes, 
in support of the above facts, and to speak to the value of the dog. 
Henry Johnson proved that the dog was so sagacious that he would 
come and fetch witness to replace the hurdles. He had been a shepherd 
fortv-seven years, and never met with such a dog. 
Mr. Earns haw, a farmer, who knew the dog fully, bore witness also 
to his extraordinary sagacity. 
Mr. Grazehrook admitted that his client had shot the dog, which had 
trespassed on Mr. Noade’s premises, and which, it appeared, had been 
attracted there by a bitch belonging to Mr. Noade, and justified his 
having done so on an allegation that the dog had attacked his client’s 
wife, and also was in the act of attacking his client, when lie shot him 
in self-defence, which act was justifiable, as his client had every reason 
to believe that the dog was in a rabid state, and highly dangerous. He 
(Mr. Grazehrook) would particularly call the attention of the jury to 
the fact that had been admitted, that the dog was shot in the mouth, 
which went to show that the dog’s mouth was open at the time, and in 
the act of attacking his client. 
Mr. Grazehrook then called the defendant and his wife, who deposed 
to the dog’s separate attacks upon them. Both these witnesses under¬ 
went a severe cross-examination by Mr. Haynes, who contended that 
the plaintiff had made out his claim, and that the defence now set up 
was an afterthought and inconsistent with the cause assigned by the 
defendant to the plaintiff when be first spoke to him on the subject, 
and he put it to the jury whether it was reasonable to suppose that a 
dog attracted to defendant’s premises under the circumstances stated 
bv Mr. Grazehrook would be ferocious and attack persons in the way 
described, without being first struck or ill-treated. 
The learned Judge summed up, and told the jury that if the de¬ 
fendant’s statement was true, undoubtedly he was justified in shooting 
the dog, and it would be an answer to the action, but it was a ques¬ 
tion for them to decide; and if they did not believe the defeuce set 
up, then they would find a verdict for the plaintiff, with such damages 
as they thought fair and reasonable. 
The jury consulted a few minutes, and returned a verdict for the 
plaintiff.—Damages £l. 
OBITUARY. 
Died, January 21st. 1861, at Trichi nopoly, Madras, Mr. 
Thos. Smith Parker, M.R.C.V.S. His diploma bears date 
June 15th, 1842. 
EEHATUM I> >0.402. 
At page 366, line 8 .for John Hanley, read John Hanly. 
