A pug dog was deemed to be an interested witness in this case. He was able to give vocal and physical evidence of the identity of his owner.
COURT of KING’S BENCH, Nov. 30.
Grammont v. Boyton. – This was an action of trover*. The defendant was charged with the conversion# of a pug dog. – Mr. Marryat, who opened the plaintiff’s case, proposed to support it by at least a dozen witnesses. The defendant admitted the taking of the dog, but alleged that he took him in the way of recovery: he confessed that he had found the dog when lost by the plaintiff, but affirmed that he had himself originally lost the dog, and that it was through such loss that the dog had first come into the plaintiff’s possession.
The Lord Chief Justice doubted whether the cause would not be better taken out of Court. The evidence of the dog himself would probably be necessary.
Mr. Gurney, had no objection to that course. The dog, indeed, was his leading witness.
Mr. Marryat begged to deny that fact: the dog was his witness – subpoenaed indeed by him.
Mr. Gurney, in that case, would insist upon cross-examining him.
Mr. Marryat was ready to refer the cause, but the dog would appear most clearly to belong to the plaintiff. In fact, he had already escaped once or twice from the defendant, and had made his way to his rightful owner.
Mr. Comyn took the dog to be an interested witness. It was doubtful how far his evidence would be admissible.
Mr. Gurney was ready to give him a release.
Mr. Marryat – Now you know that you keep him always tied up: if he were released, he would be with us in a moment.
Here the prisoner (the dog) from the lower end of the hall, testified viva voce to the truth of Mr. Marryat’s assertion.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the dog would give his evidence far more collectedly in a prrivate room, before some gentlemen of the bar, Such gentlemen might have more acquaintance with dogs than he (the Lord Chief Justice) could pretend to.
Mr. Gurney was of the same opinion, but his clients demurred.
The Lord Chief Justice was sorry fo it. There was somethjing inconsistent with the decorum of a Court in having such a witness as a dog produced.
Mr. Marryat said that his client was afraid lest the arbitrator might award damages instead of the dog. Nothing could compensate the loss of the animal.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the plaintiff might be ensured: let the arbitrator (to either party) award the dog and nominal damages.
The parties then agreed to refer,
The Stamford Mercury, 7th December, 1821.
*Trover – A law action to recover the value of chattels or goods.
#Conversion – Taking with intent of exercising ownership over a chattel.