[ London Times ]
This newspaper, most correctly known simply as The Times, began publication in 1785 and continues to this day.
The edition of December 8, 1835 carried the following court report regarding yet another lawsuit contesting ownership of a Newfoundland:
COURT OF EXCHEQUER
Monday, December 8
(London Sittings, before Lord Abinger and a Common Jury.)
LEWIS v. HARTLET
This was an action for trespass, to recover the value of a Newfoundland dog. The damages were laid at 15£.
. . . .
The plaintiff is an auctioneer, and the defendant a police-inspector. In November, 1834, the plaintiff purchased a puppy of the Newfoundland breed from a dealer in dogs named Purdy, for which he paid 30s. The dog was taken to the plaintiff's residence in Camden-town. In March last the plaintiff came to live in the Strand, and brought the dog with him. The animal had the mange, and annoyed the neighbours by its howlings, and in consequence of the complaints which were made upon the subject, he sent it to a person named Palmer, living in Drury-lane, who was to keep it in his yard. After it had been there three or four days Palmer's son took the dog out, when a policeman seized it and took it to the station-house, where the defendant claimed it as his property and refused to give it up.
Jane Hurst, who had been in the plaintiff's service up to April last, swore that she paid 30s. for the dog at Purdy's shop, and saw it every day until she left the plaintiff's service. She was quite positive that the dog produced in court was the same which she brought from Purdy's.
Richard Kean, Purdy's shopman, proved that he delivered a Newfoundland puppy to the plaintiff's servant, for which he received 30s.; but from the time which had since elapsed, he could not tell whether the puppy which he then sold was the dog now produced.
About eight or nine other witnesses identified the dog in court as that which they had seen in the plaintiff's possession; but it was singular that none of the plaintiff's witnesses could state the sex of the animal. It was in fact a bithc.
For the defense Richard Gilbank swore that he gave the dog to the defendant in November, 1834; it was then two months old. He swore positively to the identity of the animal.
John Bridges, who had the dog for the defendant for five weeks, also stated decidely that the dog in court was the same which he had had in his possession.
Several policemen swore that the dog was kept in the station-house till February last, when it was missed. They recognized it immediately by its general appearance. Independently of that, the dog when it was missed had an ulcer on its neck, and on being brought back it was shaved, and a scar such as would be produced by an ulcer was found on its neck.
Mr. PLATT recalled two witnesses, who stated that whewn the dog was in the plaintiff's possession it injured the skin of its throat during the time it was labouring under disease.
Lord ABINGER was about to sum up the evidence, when the jury said they had made up their minds, and immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding him the dog and 10£ damages.
The defendant refused to give up the dog.
Lord ABINGER said, that he could not compel the defendant to surrender the dog. The jury had better give the plaintiff the value of teh dog. He did not understand why they had given the plaintiff damages. All he was entitled to was the dog or its value.
The Jury said the plaintiff had been subjected to great inconvennience in bringing the action.
Lord ABINGER suggested that they should reconsider their verdict.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. — Damages, 20£