514 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
IMPORTANT “DOG” QUESTION. 
At the Bow-street police-station, in London, jMr. Love, chief officer of 
the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, accompanied by 
Mr. Bishop, the celebrated gun-maker (and who, a few years ago, 
brought forward a bill to prevent dog-stealing), of New Bond-street, 
applied to Mr. Corrie, for a summons against a lady named Hicks, for 
causing a valuable dog to be cruelly destroyed under the following cir¬ 
cumstances : 
It appeared that Mr. Bishop, the owner of the dog, called at Gray’s- 
inn-square about a week ago, leaving the dog in his cab, with particular 
directions to the cabman to look after it. When he returned to the cab 
he found that the dog had been permitted to escape, and, besides causing 
every inquiry to be made, he advertised in the papers and printed bills, 
offering a reward for the recovery of the animal. Subsequently it came 
to the knowledge of Mr. Bishop that a Miss Hicks, an elderly lady living 
in Southampton-buildings, had seen the dog in Gray’s-inn-square, and 
had given some man sixpence to destroy it, “because it was foaming at 
the mouth, and appeared likely to faint.” The man who killed the dog 
lived in North Mews, near Miss Hicks’s residence, and it has been ascer¬ 
tained that she had previously employed him on the same business. She 
was connected in some way with a “ Dog’s Home,” but the society alto¬ 
gether repudiated her acts in adopting such measures, instead of causing 
stray dogs to be taken to the “ Home.” Miss Hicks justified her con¬ 
duct by alleging that the dog, in her opinion, was going mad; but there 
was not the slightest reason for this presumption, and as it appeared to 
be a favorite pastime of the lady, it was considered desirable, for the 
protection of all dog-owners, that her proceedings should be checked. 
The Magistrate .—But you ask for a summons on the ground of 
“cruelty ?” The question then is, Mr. Bishop, did she cause the dog to 
be put to death in a cruel manner ? 
Mr. Bishop .—The man first tried to hang the poor animal, and falling 
in this knocked it on the head. I assure you it is the greatest blow that 
has ever been inflicted on me and my family. 
The Magistrate .—Possibly the lady may have been mistaken, but you 
cannot show any intentional “ cruelty.” 
Mr. (greatly excited).—Was it not “cruelty” to me—to my 
niece—to all my family ? “ Love me, love my dog ! It has broken up 
our peace and happiness at home. We would not have parted with 
the dog for half a million of money. Is a woman to go unpunished for 
such a crime as this, for deliberately killing an innocent, beautiful, 
harmless dog, because it was merely “panting” a little? 
The Magistrate .—I can make some allowance for your feelings, and if 
they can be soothed by pecuniary compensation, no doubt you can pro¬ 
ceed against the lady by action for damages ; but it does not come 
within my province to interfere at all in the case. 
Mr, Love said he feared there was a “ difficulty” in the case, the lady 
having no doubt acted from a mistaken and not a malicious motive; but 
