[ London Times ]
This newspaper, most correctly known simply as The Times, began publication in 1785 and continues to this day.
The edition of May 17, 1841 carried the following legal report of a dispute involving the Newf-associated dog seller, J. S. Pardy, the dog dealer discussed at some length here at The Cultured Newf. This case too involves a Newfoundland:
BOW-STREET. — On Saturday a man of the name of John Stephen Pardy, who keeps a dog depot in Whetstone-park, Lincoln's-inn-fields, appeared before Mr. JARDINE, upon a summons charged with unlawfully detaining a valuable Newfoundland dog, the property of Mr. Williams, of Friday-street, Cheapside.
It appeared from the statement of a person in the employ of the complainant, that about a fortnight ago the dog in question was lost, and a day or two since, in consequence of some information received, he went to the defendant and made some inquiry respecting it. The defendant at once gave him a very correct description of the animal, and admitted that he knew where it was, but refused to produce it until he was paid a fee of one guinea. When the dog was lost it had a collar on with Mr. Williams's name and address engraved upon it. When questioned about the collar, the defendant said he knew nothing about it, and that if his fee was not paid before 2 o'clock the dog would be sold. The demand was, of course, refused, and a summons was obtained against him for detaining the dog.
The defendant's solicitor said his client had since discovered that he had not got the complainant's dog, but another very much like it. But even if he had got it he would not part with it till he received his fee.
Mr. JARDINE wished to be informed upon what ground a fee of a guinea was demanded.
The solicitor said the defendant was at great expense in advertising dogs that had been lost and afterwards came into his possession.
The complainant said that his dog had never been advertised at all.
The solicitor said it was true that particular animal had not been advertised, but the defendant had inserted a general advertisement in several of the papers, to the effect that persons who had lost dogs might probably gain some intelligence of them by applying at his depot. Some short time since a dog, lost by Lord Palmerston, had been restored through him, and his Lordship paid the fee without hesitation.
Mr. Jardine was of opinion that a person was not bound to pay the expense of a general advertisement, such as had been described; but the complainant would be liable for the dog's keep, and the defendant would be justified in detaining it until that expense was paid.
The solicitor repeated that the defendant had not got the complainant's dog. He was willing to show the one supposed to be the complainant's, and if he could prove it was his, he might have it on paying the expense of its keep.
The complainant's witness said the defendant distinctly told him that he knew very well where the dog was, and could produce it in five minutes, but insisted on his fee of one guinea being first paid. He had no doubt whatever that the defendant could produce a dog like the one lost, or the dog itself, if he thought proper.
It was eventually agreed that the complainant should go and see the dog, and if it was the one he lost, he was to have it returned upon paying the expenses.
Some time after the parties had left the court the complainant's young man returned in a state of considerable excitement, and stated, that when he went to the defendant's house according to agreement to see the dog, the defendant was from home, but he waited his return. As soon as he saw the defendant, he asked to see the dog, upon which he replied, "I've been civil to you for the last two days, but now I shall act differently," and at the same moment struck him a violent blow in the body, and then tore his coat nearly from his back. He was compelled to seek shelter in an adjoining house, in order to escape the defendant.
Mr. Jardine instantly granted a warrant, and the defendant was soon after brought to the court in custody.
The above facts having been repeated,
Mr. JARDINE said, it was a most gross and unprovoked assault, and he should therefore order the defendant to pay a fine pay a fine [of] 40s., or in default to be committed to the House of Correction for 8 days.
The fine was immediately paid.
That's the end of the newspaper article, the reporter apparently having forgotten all about the issue of the dog.