VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 515 
Mr. Bishop was very anxious that the society should investigate the 
matter, and he had done so. 
The Magistrate .—I am very sorry it has happened, but cruelty to the 
animal must be shown, not to the owner. The act does not deal with 
the feelings of individuals. 
Mr. Bishop. —Feelings! This dog was my life—my wife’s and my 
niece’s life. I would sooner have lost every gun in my shop. 
The applicant then retired, but returning almost immediately with his 
own Act of Parliament in his hand, he said : 
A thought has occurred to me, sir! Cannot I charge this woman 
with stealing my dog ? She hires a man to take it from Gray’s-inn- 
square to a mews in Southampton-buildings, there to be cruelly killed.— 
Is not that an act of felony ? 
The Magistrate .—Certainly not; unless you can show that she did so 
for the sake of possessing its skin or carcase. At all events, I should 
not commit a person on such a charge. I am aware that you ob¬ 
tained the act, but you cannot find a clause to that effect in it. As I 
said before, the lady may have acted very improperly. I give no 
opinion on that point. But I am certain you cannot charge her with 
cruelty or felony. 
DOGS, WARDS OF COURT I 
Dogs had attained one step higher in the social scale when they were 
announced for exhibition at an annual show. We now find them lite¬ 
rally figuring as “ wards in Chancery,” undergoing those paternal atten¬ 
tions which lords and vice-chancellors occasionally pay to young ladies 
and gentlemen. In re Ude (before Vice-Chanceller Sir J. Stuart, on 
Saturday), the testatrix (said to be the widow of the celebrated cook, 
M. Ude), by her will directed the trustees to invest sufficient money in 
their names to produce the annual sum of £10 for the support of each 
of her three dogs, Yorick, Minnie, and Fanny, or such of them as might 
be living at her decease; such sum to be paid to her grandchildren so 
long as the dogs should live and her grandchildren be willing to take care 
of them; otherwise the trustees were to find some person to take care of 
them. One of the dogs died last September. It was now proposed 
that a sum of £666 13.s. 4d. three per cent, consols, should be set 
apart to answer the annuities to the two surviving dogs. Mr. Bacon, 
Mr. Malins, Mr. Eddis, and Mr. Cracknall were counsel in the case. The 
vice-chancellor made an order as proposed. [It is not said whether the 
annuitants were present to “ bow wow” their sentiments to the court.] 
HUDDERSFIELD COUNTY COURT.— May 11th, 1863. 
Before J. Stansfeld, Esq., Judge. 
Sheldon n . Carter.—Jury Case, 
The plaintiff, Mr. Sheldon, is a farmer and innkeeper, at High Hoy- 
land, near Barnsley, and the defendant, Mr. Carter, is a farmer and 
