581. 
VETElllNARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
of poor people, that if a dog bit them or tlieir cliildren nothing would do 
but that the dog must be killed, IJc (the magi^trate) should like the dog 
to live, for if it went on well he should be easy in his mind about the 
child. The applicant had better rest contented, and let the dog live. 
Applicant. —1 would rather the dog was killed. The fortune-teller read 
the cards, and said the dog had better be sent out of the world. Suppose 
the planets crossed, and the dog was not out of this world, what should 
she and her poor child do ? It was horrible to think that her child might 
go mad. The dog was not worth a farthing, and yet the parties to whom 
it belonged wanted lO.s. ofher to have it destroyed, but she would see 
them hanged first before she would pay a single farthing. 
M^r. D' Eynconrt said it was very foolish of the applicant to listen to such 
foolish twaddle. There is a prevalent notion that the dog must be killed 
to effect a perfect cure. He could do nothing for her; but if the parties 
to whom the dog belonged did not pay her the expenses she had incurred 
by calling in the doctor, she might sue them in the county court. 
The Applicant said that she would adopt that course, and would see 
what a little dose of poison put upon some nice meat would do for the 
brute of a dog that had bitten her child. 
DOG CASE. 
Dogs of late have been somewhat conspicuous in our law courts; the 
same, it would seem, is the case on the continent. The following'is from 
one of our leading daily papers. 
Diplomacy has again been busy in Paris; not this time about Poland, 
or North or South, or looking after the interests of five ruffians en voyage. 
A dog has been the cause of the last protocols and proces-verhal.^ written 
in the Faubourg St. Honore. It is a grave question, and involves a point 
of national law quite as curious as many other diplomatic propositions. 
Mr. Hildyard, attached to her Britannic Majesty’s Legation, has a bull¬ 
dog, Towler by name; one cannot be too particular in these cases. The 
tax-gatherer of the district views that bandy-legged “ bouldogue ” with a 
commercial eye, sets a value on him, and imposes an ad valorem tax of ten 
francs on his ugly head. Ilis master objects to pay those two pieces of 
one hundred sous. “It is not the value of the halfpenny,” as Liston 
used to say, “but the principle of the thing;” and Mr. Hildyard will see 
the tax-gatherer “ further first.” The matter is referred to M. Marguerie, 
a counsellor learned in the law of nations. Mr. Hildyard appeared in 
court, his “faithful dog” keeping him company, and it was decided that 
on the principle of reciprocity “ Towler” should go free ; but this did not 
satisfy the collector of taxes, and he changed the venue,” and referred 
the case to M. de Guigne, Koyal Commissioner, who confirmed the pre¬ 
vious judgment, but on quite different grounds; the legation is, by a 
diplomatic fiction, “British territory,” and so Towler being at home, is 
an English dog, and free from French taxes. 
It is thought—if this question had not been so happily settled—that 
after notes had been exchanged the dogs of each embassy must have 
been recalled, and a rupture of canine relations established. This is, 
happily, avoided, and the attach^ of Paris and London may each go out 
with a dog to lead them if they are so minded. 
