Claim for detention of a dog, its restoration, or $50 damages.
Defendant admitted that the dog was in his possession, but he did not know that it belonged to plaintiff.
Tastes Dick, sworn, stated—L am a boilermaker in Mr, Muirhead's employ. Last July black retriever dog, which then belonged to a Mr. Moore, a friend and fellow workman of mine, was lost. About Jan. 12th it returned to Mr. Moore's house, A couple of days afterwards he gave it me, and had it two weeks. On the 23rd Jan. it was taken from my house in Pootung during my ab~ rence. My boy told me defendant had come and taken it applied to him for it. He said I could have it on paying expenses, I asked what the amount was and he said he would make up the bill at night. He gave up the dog and sent a hill at night for $20.25, for 7 month's keep and advertising.
replied that L wished to see him about the Dill, but he did not come. The dog continued with me till 10 days ago, when defendant came (lie lives close by) and whistled to the dog, which went off with him. He has had it ever since. applied for but was told would not get it without payin the expenses. [put a value of Defendant read the followin About June 1871, between 10 and 12, a black pup came to' my house and continued to hang about the place for two or three days. The dog was mangy, and I thought it was one of the numerous' dogs that I saw by the Papers were being sent over to Pootung, by the police, during the hot weather. I beat it away several tintes, and at last a gentleman was yoing to shoot it as a nuisance. But felt pity for it, and said, if he would spare it I would take care of This was eyreed to. There was no advertisement of any dog lost answering to its description, I yot medicine which cost money, and took great trouble in tending and dieting it. The dog gradually began to pick up and became a pet in my house. About the middle of January, a friend who was staying with us having occasion to 0 to French Town, it with him. The log went astray. T advertised for it but no one replied to the advertisement. three week:
afterwards, was told a dog simi lar to the one I had lost was in the posses: of plaintiff, who is employed at the Pootung Foundry, close to where I live. I went across to see him. He was absent, but his boy, at my request, untied the dog, whi once knew me and' jumped joyously about. It followed me home of its own accord. 1 left word wich Mr. Prentice, the manager. to tell Mr. Dick to come over fo my house and we would talk the matter over. He came and claimed the dog as his. He had got it from a Mr. Moore living in Hongkew. On comparing dates it was found that the dog had gone to where Moore lives friend, and that Moore had removed my ealthe same evening that it went astray from my Jar from it—which has nut yet been returned tome. Inaday or two plaintiff saw it at Moore's, and asked him to give it him, which he did Ttold him the dog was, mine, and Moore ought to have replied to, my. advertisement and was liable to be prosecuted for retaining the dog in his possession after my advertisement appeared; and in any case he was bound to return me the collar. He said that Moore had originally lost the dog, and had been unable to trace it till it aceidentally came to his house in January. I think
advertised the loss of the dog, and I think that a very unlikely story. Moore never clear proof ought to be given that there is any foundation for the story. Plaintiff persisted in demanding the dog; my wife and I were very unwilling to part with it, as we had become attached to it. But as it seemed likely to cause trouble, it was at last arranged that he should have the dog on paying all expenses incurred by me, and returning me the collar. Accordingly he took the dog away, and the same day I sent him a bill for the expenses. He wrote me on the same date that he would see me before paying, but for two weeks he never came, and I heard in several quarters that he was boasting that he would pay no expenses. As I was passing the end of my house, I saw the dog near Pootung Foundry and whistled; the dog at once ran towards me and' swam the creek. Since then T have kept it, Iam unwilling to part with it, but if your Worship thinks [-sbould' do oe' I mast ange Gaus the ecpensss Thave incurred should be refunded, as indeed plaintiff agreed to do. 1 would venture to should prove that the dog was originally his, uggeat to your Worship that, even if Moore of which as yet we have no proof whatever, his failing to advertise for it, the well known fact that unclaimed dogs were then being deported from Shanghai, and the disease condition in which I found the animal, quite warranted my retaining it, and if it is now to be reclaimed my expenses ought to be paid.
His Worship examined plaintiff on material points for defendant.
Plaintiff stated in answer to the Court—The dog was lost when about 18 months old. Tt wasa little mangy but nothing to speak of. It was a valuable dog in spite of its condition. Mr. Moore didn't advertise, but ud L went about inquiring for it. During the 7 months I never saw the dog at defendant's. I didn't enquire there because it was lost in Hongkew. I heard of defendant's advertisement about the dog when it left him. I knew it was Houstoun adver-wed, but C never thought of asking him, whether the dog, which had then come to me, was the one he sought. I gave Moore a small dog in exchange for it when he was leaving Hongkew. It was a pup when lost, but is about the same size now as then. 1 haven't any collar found on the dog when it came back to me. Defendant has a collar belonging to one now. I never agreed to pay the ill would not mind paying reasonable thing for the keep of the dog." I would keep a dog on about $1 a month, and am willing to pay at that rate, which would amount to $7. $14 a month for rice and $4 for butcher meat t consider too much.
Defendant, sworn, stated—The dog was I think about 4 or 5 months old when it came tome. It was full of mange, and had lost the hair in many places, and was nothing but skin and bones. A friend next door suggested shooting it. I swear to my statement handed A statement male by the person who wanted t6 shoot the dog was also read for the defence.
Defendant continucd—Plaintiff did not come to see me about paying. I have no reason to doubt plaintit's story. believe the dog has cost me more than state, more than $2 a month. Ihave paid at least $24 for medicine. When Ilost it 1 advertised it, and I believe that will cost me $4. hai another small dog, and had to get a pecul of rice for them monthly, costing' $3, and butcher meat Plaintiff said he could keep the dog on $1.
Defendant said the condition of the dog when first found made him quite believe it was kept on $1 a month.
His Worship said defendant lad no right of property in the dog as against the real owner, Unough he had against anyone else; and how:
much it bad endeared itself to him he would have to give it up. Plaintiff was entitled to receive the dog, but also bound to pay for the expense incurred, which he expressed himself willing to do tothe extent of $7, while defendant claimed $14. The
As it did not appear that the rate cha for food. was extravagant ie would allow ete for advertising one not veanewea: dant'sclaim for food and medicine, $16.95. Under the cireumstances—both parties having failed to do what they should have done (the defendant not restoring the dog, and the plaintiff not tendering the expenses connected with its keep)—eosts would be divided, Defendant would therefore receive $16.25, return the dog and pay half costs.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.