The Times 1811 - 1820 Aug 27 Carlisle Assizes (Civil Side-Birkitt v. Irton)...#4

Aug 27 Carlisle Assizes (Civil Side-Birkitt v. Irton)...#4

The Times, Friday, Aug 27, 1819; pg. 3; Issue 10709; col A                               CUMBERLAND ASSIZES.                                        ------------------                          CARLISLE, MONDAY, AUG. 23.                                           CIVIL SIDE.     [continued]                          BIRKITT V. IRTON. - TRESPASS. Mr. SCARLETT stated that the plaintiff and his three sons were returning home from a harvest-feast, at a neighbour's house, about 10 o'clock at night, when the defendant, son of Mr. IRTON, of Irton-hall, sprung out of a hedge, and shot the plaintiff's dog. This was the trespass now complained of. None of the plaintiff's family was ever a poacher: the dog was neither a pointer nor a setter. This was, therefore, a wanton trespass. It was not merely the value of the dog that they were to give, for the plaintiff was fond of his dog, and though perhaps not worth 3L., would not have parted with him for 10L. Anthony BIRKITT proved the killing of the dog by the defendant. Witness, his father, and his brothers, were returning from a corwen-feast. (Mr. Justice BAYLEY, - "Corn-won" probably.) A neighbour of the plaintiff's proved the dog to have been a cur, 7 months old, extremely subject to command, and well-trained for guiding sheep. He would have given 50s. for him if he wanted such a dog. Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that the defendant did not appear to be disposed to oppress the plaintiff, for he did not defend this action. It might be considered, in excuse of his conduct, that the time of night and the circumstances might have suggested a suspicion that they were poachers. At the same time, he agreed with the learned counsel, that a poor man's dog was not to be wantonly shot with impunity. They were told that the dog was obedient to command, and worth 50s. The consideration for them was not strictly the value of the dog, but the value which the plaintiff put upon him; for persons often became attached to animals from familiarity, and acquaintance with their good qualities. - Verdict for the plaintiff - Damages 5L.

 

< Prev		Next >