The Barnstaple Cat Case in July 1889 was well reported in the local press and sought to establish whether a cat was "property" and whether an owner could claim damages if a cat were killed or injured. But first, let's look at a case a few months earlier where a plaintiff was dissuaded from pursuing a case against the person who had killed her cat.

CLAIM FOR A CAT. Western Gazette, May 9th, 1889
Before His Honour Judge Mackonochie. Bertha Burt, of Leigh, widow, sued Daniel Summers, [game]keeper, of Steventon, Torrington, Devon, for £3, for a cat which defendant was alleged to have shot. Mr. Trevor-Davies appeared for defendant. Plaintiff asked for the case to be adjourned, as she alleged that one of her witnesses (her niece), who saw the cat shot, was bribed to stay away that day, and she wished to summon her to appear. Mr. Trevor-Davies pointed out that the defendant was gamekeeper in the employ of the Hon. Mark Rolle, and had come from Torrington to defend the action, and would be put to considerable inconvenience in attending again. He thought he was justified in saying not a shadow of a case could made out by plaintiff. As plaintiff could not prove the killing of the cat without the assistance of the absent witness, His Honour adjourned the case; and, on the application of Mr. Trevor-Davies, made order on plaintiff to pay the costs of that day's proceedings before the next hearing.

THE CAT CASE. Western Gazette, 7th June, 1889.
At the last court, Bertha Burt, of Leigh, sued Daniel Summers, keeper, of Torrington, for £3, for a cat which defendant was alleged to have killed, and the case was adjourned for plaintiff to produce a witness. She had, however, to pay the costs of the hearing before the case could be heard again. Plaintiff did not put in an appearance when the case was first called, and Mr. Trevor-Davies (who represented the defendant) said defendant has not appeared as the plaintiff had not paid the costs of the last hearing as ordered by His Honour. At a later stage of the proceedings plaintiff appeared, and in answer to His Honour as to why she had not paid the costs of the court, she said she had not been informed by the Court what she had to pay. It was pointed out to her that she was told what she would have to pay.
His Honour: if this case is heard, and if it should happen tht the judgment should go against you, you would have to pay £4 odd.
Mr. Trevor-Davies: She has to pay that now.
His Honour: What is the value of the cat?
Plaintiff: I value the cat at a great deal more money than I put in for.
Mr. Adams (registrar's clerk): She valued it at £3.
Plaintiff: I would rather have the cat than the money.
His Honour (to Plaintiff): You have to pay £4 before I can hear the case at all; and then, you know, it is possible you may lose it.
Plaintiff: I suppose it can be put off until the next Court.
His Honour: Oh no, it can't be adjourned to another Court until the money is paid.
Plaintiff: I can't pay it now, then.
Plaintiff then left the court.

Unfortunately I don't know what the outcome of the case was. Had she won, the plaintiff would have been awarded the costs as well as the value of the cat. The lack of further reports, the suggestion of a bribed witness and the fact that the defendant reported to a titled person, suggested she was dissuaded from pursuing the case. Or perhaps the Hon. Mark Rolle gave her some money without admission of liability. The next case is more satisfying to cat owners, albeit it starts out as "cat killed by dogs, how funny!" The plaintiff is a lot better organised and has legal counsel. There was nothing amusing to the cat, and the publicity served as a warning to dog owners.

AMUSING CAT CASE AT BARNSTAPLE. IS THERE PROPERTY IN A CAT? Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, 19th July 1889
At the Barnstaple County Court Tuesday, before his Honour Judge Paterson, action was brought by Mrs. Allen, a bookseller, of Boutport-street, against Mr. William Tarr, landlord of the King's Arms Hotel, for the recovery of £6 damages, value of a cat which had been killed by dogs belonging to the defendant. On the case being called on his Honour made remark expressing doubt to an action lying Mr. W. P. Bencraft, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that in this case die dogs went into the plaintiff's house and killed the cat, and the dogs therefore committed a trespass.

His Honour: Yes, if the owner sends the dogs in.
Mr. Bencraft: The owner of animal is liable for the injury it did. If a man keeps a vicious animal he is.
His Honour: You do not mean to say that a dog that worries a cat is a vicious animal. (Laughter.) A cat, you know, will go for a bird.
Mr. Bencraft: Yes, and a dog will go for a cat. There was a case here once of an action for a cat getting amongst pigeons and killing them, and the owner was sued for damages.
His Honour: That is a strange case.
Mr. Bencraft: I can show you that these dogs are in the habit of running after cats and killing them, and that they have killed more than one cat before. I shall prove one of the dogs is a vicious animal, and that the owner knew it to be so. The cat was in the shop quietly lying down, when the dogs rushed in to it, got it into the road, and killed it. That is doing damage to the plaintiff's property.
Mr. Ffinch (who appeared for the defendant): You must show that the cat is property.
His Honour : You have not got a case for that I see.
Mr. Bencraft: Dogs that acquire the habit of killing cats will do it readily. There are dogs which are notorious cat killers, and the owners would not be liable at all if I have no case.
His Honour: In common law a cat is not an article of property.
Mr. Ffinch said that was so, as hares, wild rabbits, cats, etc. could not distrained upon.
Mr. Bencraft: A cat is not a subject of larceny perhaps.
Mr. Ffinch: You cannot eat cats.
His Honour : They did during the siege of Paris. (Laughter.)
Mr. Ffinch ; Yes, but they do not generally.
Mr. Bencraft proceeded to quote the Act dealing with animals kept in a state of confinement or for any domestic purpose, such as cats.
Mr. Ffiinch : What is the purpose?
Mr. Bencraft: Kept tor the purpose of killing mice. (Laughter.)
His Honour: Cats are not attached persons, but to places.
Mr. Bencraft: That might be applied to an infant in arms. If you change houses the infant won't go, it must be taken.
Mr. Ffinch: But a cat goes back again, and infant cannot.
Mr. Bencraft; Whittington sold his cat, and be found it a valuable investment.
His Honour: That is a very doubtful story. (Laughter.)
Mr. Ffinch: The dogs did no more than other dogs do.
His Honour then allowed evidence to be called. The plaintiff deposed that three greyhounds, belonging to Mr. Tarr, deliberately rushed into her shop and worried her cat. It ran into the street, where they followed and killed it. A man in the employ of Mr. Tarr was in a trap with another dog, but did not attempt to call the dogs off. The cat was a Persian, for which she bad been offered £6.
In cross-examination, the plaintiff said she had never had any complaint of her cat worrying dogs.
The evidence as to the killing of the cat was corroborated by Ellen Lake and William Lake. William Pooley deposed that Mrs. Thornby's cat had its leg injured, and he believed Mr. Tarr's dogs did it. Mrs. Brailey said her cat was killed she believed by the defendant's dogs, and in the evening of that day she saw Mr. and he offered her compensation another cat, but that was after Mrs. Allen's cat had been killed.
His Honour said the plaintiff had no case, and must dismiss it.
Mr. Bencraft: I am sorry to have occupied your time then, sir.

THE ‘‘AMUSING CAT CASE" AT BARNSTAPLE. Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, 22nd July 1889
To the Editor of the Devon and Exeter Daily Gazette. Sir,
I am afraid l am dull of apprehension. The fact that three dogs ran into a shop, drove thence and worried to death a valuable Persian cat that was quietly sunning itself in window, seems to me to lack some elements of true humour, especially from the point of view of the cat. The lawyers and the learned Judge were very funny when the owner of the cat sought to recover damages from the owner of the dogs, and the learned Judge decided that there was no case, as a cat is not "property," and dismissed the parties concerned without expressing his gratitude to the owner of the dogs for affording the Court such rare entertainment.

Two things suggest themselves. First, the question and answer. "Is this law? Aye, marry, ‘tis it, Crowner's quest law;" and, secondly, the unwisdom of all that waste of valuable pity that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Animals is bestowing upon the homeless London cats, whose owners - beg pardon, entertainers - turn them into the squares.to starve, when they leave London to enjoy themselves in the summer. These people are to be prosecuted by the S.P.C.A.. For the poor cats are as sensitive to pain as Shylock, and since "man has sought the cat's society, and not the cat man's," he has a duty towards the poor animal, whom he made as dependent on himself as a canary in a cage. The Barnstaple cats and the London cats are not "on all fours," and there is screw loose somewhere.

We are all of us, I think, fond of our dumb pets, and the more helpless they are, the more indignant we are at their ill-treatment. The sentiment of pity is wholly a Christian virtue, and "He prayeth best who loveth best, Both man and bird and beast."

I think therefore that the S.P.C A. is right about the poor cats, and that the ‘‘ laughter" and "amusement" that arose from the rare treat of hearing that three dogs worried a poor cat to death lacks some of the elements of gentleness and virtue, and the law that dismisses the case is bad law.
I am, sir, etc., E. C. S.

THE LATE AMUSING CAT CASE AT BARNSTAPLE. Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, 14th August 1889
[With added commentary for the layman]
Some time ago we reported what was described as an a-"mews"-ing cat case heard at the Barnstaple County Court before his Honour Judge Paterson. Briefly the facts were that Mrs. Allen, bookseller, of Boutport-street, Barnstaple, had a valuable Persian cat sitting in her shop when three greyhounds, belonging to Mr. William Tarr, of the King's Arms Hotel, Barnstaple, entered the shop. They worried the cat, which ran into the roadway, to where the dogs followed it and inflicted such injuries that it died. The case was dismissed by his Honour. Yesterday, Mr. A.F. Seldon, on the part of the plaintiff, applied for a new trial, first on the ground that his Honour was wrong in holding that the plaintiff had no property in a cat; second, that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and third, that the plaintiff had discovered fresh evidence which he was unable to obtain at the last trial.

His Honour asked Mr. Seldon to conilne himself to the last point. Mr. Seldon said the latter not a ground upon which it was usual to grant a new trial, but he submitted that this was a case in which the evidence would warrant it. The nature of the fresh evidence was evidence bringing home to the defendant knowledge that his dogs had similarly attacks and killed a cat on a previous occasion and had worried smaller dogs. His Honour asked Mr. Seldon why he did not bring forward the evidence at the trial. Mr. Seldon said it was because plaintiff was not aware of it. It only came to her knowledge after the case had been made public in the newspapers. This he (Mr. Seldon) thought would be abundant evidence to show the mischievous tendency of the dogs, and would throw upon the defendant the onus of controlling the dogs.

His Honour said the other grounds were futile and would have been disposed of quickly. What he wanted to know was if Mr. Seldon had any authority to show that supposing there was knowledge the Act would apply. His Honour remarked that while he said at the last Court there was no property in a cat, he still thought there might be in some cases. But the decision in the case was that the plaintiff failed altogether to prove the knowledge of the character the dog before the accident occurred. He need not have made that remark at all about property in a cat. He did not say it was wrong, but it was irrelevant. Mr. Seldon admitted that had no case if scienter were not proved.

[Scienter means intent or knowledge of wrongdoing - does the offending party know the "wrongness" of an act or event before committing it? In this case the wrongdoer would be the owner of the dog if he is liable for their actions.

Much of the following discussion is about whether a cat is "property," and this includes a discussion on whether a cat-owner would be liable for his/her cat killing someone else's cage-bird (a caged animal being legally defined as property). If the cat is proved to be property then the dog-owner is liable for damage to the cat-owner's property (the cat). This is important because much of English law is case law and depends on precedent set in previous trials.]

His Honour said the only evidence of scienter was after the accident to the cat. The case could not under any circumstances be said to wrongly decided upon that evidence. Mr. Seldon said his Honour did not take that piece of evidence. His Honour said it was a strange thing that not only the reporters and himself, but Mr. Bencraft, never noticed it. The plaintiff must have thought she gave the evidence. Mr. Seldon said she was still prepared to say it, and they would see if the defendant was prepared to deny it.

His Honour said what he wanted to know was supposing Mr. Seldon succeeded in proving scienter could he show the Act would apply. Mr, Seldon said yes. He had authority for showing that Blackstone's Commentaries by Stevenson dealt with animals and divided them into two classes, one being a tame and the other of wild disposition. In those which were tame it was admitted he might have property, but in the wild animals the case was different. They were not subject to absolute property while living, but under certain circumstances man might be invested with a qualifying or special property in them. His Honour said what he wanted to know was if Mr. Seldon had any authority to show that a man was liable for injury committed by his dog, not by his authority, but by his dog of his own will. Mr. Seldon said he wanted first to establish that a man might have property, qualified or otherwise, in a cat. He might get qualified property in an animal which was wild, and a property of that description was protected while it lasted by law, so that an action would be against any man who detained any such animal, or who unlawfully destroyed it. He might get a qualified property in animal which was originally wild, but which became domestic or had been reclaimed from its wild condition.

[Now they look at whether the offence occurred on the plaintiff's property or on the street. In this case, where did the offence begin? It began on her property and, therefore, cat could be considered property. At that time, it was not established whether a straying cat was property or was treated (in law) as a wild animal.]

His Honour said the difficulty was the liability of the owner of the dog. Where was he bound to keep that dog from going away and doing anything except by statute? Mr Seldon quoted the case of Reed and Edwards, in the Law Journal Reports, New Series, vol 24. The head note stated that defendant knowing that certain of his dogs were accustomed to hunt for game, and also knowing the plaintiff preserved game, he was negligent in not controlling his dog. Defendant knew of the vice of the dog in that direction, and allowed the dog to be large near the wood. His Honour said there was nothing there about preserving a cat. The quoted was a question of the game laws. The case certainly had some bearing on it. Mr. Seldon said game only remained the property of the proprietor so long as it remained on his land, and game were wild animals. In this case the cat was on the land, so to speak, of the plaintiff before it was killed.
Mr Ffinch: But it came out into the street, and was killed in the street.
His Honour: Still, the dogs went into the house.
Mr. Ffinch : And the cat came out to the the road.
His Honour: They worried the cat and frightened the cat out. There was no tree up which it could get, and therefore it got into mischief.
Mr. Seldon thought the case applied to the present case.
His Honour: What appeared to be decided there was that there was a duty of the owner of the dog to restrain it.
Mr. Seldon: Yes; the owner knowing of its mischievous propensities there was a duty cast upon him to restrain it. So long as a man keeps his cat in his own house it is his own property. The cat has become domesticated by gradual use that it is reclaimed from its original wild state, and man has qualified property ii it in the same way as in a horse or any other animal used for domestic purpose. When it was in a wild state man had no property in it so long as it was not under control.
His Honour: Of course a man has property in any animal in its cage. He has property in a bird in it cage, but what about a cat getting at the cage and killing the bird.
Mr. Seldon said there came in the question of control.
His Honour: That is what I say. You must keep under control the animal. Any cat would kill a bird if it could get at it?
Mr. Seldon: Then the owner of the cat must keep the cat under proper control.
His Honour: But would he be liable if the cat escaped his control and went and killed his neighbour's bird that unfortunately happened to be hung out in such a way that the cat could get at it?
Mr. Seldon: If the owner does that he is guilty of negligence himself, but if I have a bird in a cage in my own house and a neighbour's cat comes in and kill, it that is another thing.

[We now get onto a discussion of trespass and negligence. Animals might stray, but if they commit an offence on another person's land, has the offence of trespass been committed? Should the owner restrain the animal so it can't stray or commit trespass? Wild animals can't commit trespass, but owned animals can. In the case of negligence, did the plaintiff put his property at risk of damage?]

His Honour : The cat would commit a trespass then, but in this case the cat was also in the house of the owner, but the door was open and the dog could get it. You say yourself he would negligent if he hung a cage up where the cat could get it, but here the cat was in the open shop. Do you say that an action would lie against the owner of cat for not having kept it in and locked it up, say at night, when all cats will go caterwauling (laughter) - and may go out and kill their neighbour's birds ?

Mr. Seldon ; The proposition, I think, is a sound one.
His Honour : Are you prepared to say an action would lie against the owner of a cat because the cat escaped and killed a bird?
Mr. Seidon: I submit so
His Honour: You will have great difficulty then in showing in this care that you are bound to keep in the dog and not the cat.
Mr- Seldon again referred to the case he had quoted. His Honour said there were those ugly Game Laws in Mr. Seldon's way. He knew what they would do for the sake of preserving game. He must look carefully into the case quoted. His Honour asked Mr. Ffinch what he would do if there evidence to show scienter. Mr. Ffinch, who represented the defendant, said of course the evidence of the plaintiff herself could be no ground for new trial. As to the cat being under control in this care, the door was wide open and that would show contributory negligence of the plaintiff, the same as if a canary's cage were hang where the cat could get at it. The cat was kept in a place where the dog could get at it. The evidence, too, must show absolute personal knowledge of the defendant himself that a particular dog had, in the words of the Act, "a peculiarly malicious disposition" for killing cats. Three dogs went into this shop, the cat ran out and received injuries and died. They must identify the very dog that killed the cat and must show that it that it was that same dog that had killed a cat before.

His Honour said Mr. Seldon must show that anyone of the three dogs had previously killed a cat, because in the second case they acted jointly. Mr. Ffinch said one dog might have gone for the cat end the others followed innocently (laughter.) His Honour said he could not conceive how an owner of dogs could possibly be liable because he had not kept it locked up, simply because it went after cats. The case quoted was where a dog went after game, and was kept in the vicinity of the game without being restrained from going after the game. Mr. Finch quoted Anderson v. Titmas to show that the fresh evidence to warrant a new trial must be so conclusive as to really carry a verdict with it. It was laid down in order to stop applications of that sort. His Honour said there was a doubt in his mind, and he was not aware of any case in which a new trial had been granted without the names of the witnesses being set down. Mr. Seldon said his Honour had done so in the Bideford Court. His Honour said he would take time to consider the application for a new trial

THE BARNSTAPLE CAT CASE. North Devon Journal, 29th August 1889
Mr. Harrison Weir, the president of the National Cat Club, writes long letter to "Small Pets" with reference to the cat ease recently heard the Barnstaple Court. He finds fault with the decision of the learned Judge, but evidently wrote in ignorance of the fact that His Honour has still under consideration application for new trial.

THE BARNSTAPLE CAT CASE. Exeter Flying Post, 15th October 1889
The Barnstaple cat case again came before the County Court Judge (Judge Paterson) today, in an application for a new trial by reason of additional evidence. The case was one in which three greyhounds, belonging to Mr. Tarr, of the King's Arms Hotel, entered the shop of Mrs. Allen, bookseller, and worried a valuable Persian cat, driving it out into the street, and inflicting on it injuries from which it died. She claimed £6, but the Judge non-suited the plaintiff. An application for a new trial was heard, and his Honour said he had considered the case quoted by Mr. Seldon of Reed v. Edwards. That was a case of game. A farmer kept a dog adjoining a game preserve, and he had been cautioned as to the dog trespassing and killing the game. He knew of the vicious character of the dog, and did not keep it under proper control. There was no property in game when not on the ground of the owner, but while it is on the land there was sufficient possessory property in the owner of the land to entitle him to it. That would be the same with the cat. This cat was in the open shop, and the dogs went in and inflicted the damage; but then, the plaintiff must show that the dogs to the knowledge of the defendant had been in the habit of going on premises of other persons of their own account and killing or injuring cats If he could do that, and thus bring it within the case quoted, he would grant a new trial.

APPLICATION FOR A NEW TRIAL. Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, 16th October 1889; Western Times, 16th October 1889
At the Barnstaple County Court yesterday his Honour Judge Paterson gave his decision in the application for new trial in the well-known cat case, in which Mrs. Allen, bookseller, of Boutport-street, claimed £6 damage from Mr. William Tarr, of the King's Arms Hotel, Barnstaple, by reason of his greyhounds having killed a valuable Persian cat belonging to her. His Honour said he had looked to the authority of Reed v Edwards quoted by Mr. Seldon, who appeared for the plaintiff. It was not only reported in 34 Law Journal, but in 17 Common Bench Reports. It was very fully reported. All the authorities were cited which could possibly be found on the subject by the learned counsel on both sides. He had not been able to go beyond that, and that had guided him in what was going to say.

The action was tried before him in the July Court. The plaintiff failed before him to show that any knowledge on the part of the defendant that his dog, which had killed this cat, had any vicious propensities for killing cats. That was admitted. Mr. applied at the last Court set aside the non-suit, and for a new trial upon the ground of fresh evidence which had come to the knowledge of the plaintiff after the trial in consequence of the case being reported in the newspapers. The information obtained seemed to be that the three hounds, or one of them, was of a vicious character, and that it was within the knowledge of the defendant that the dog had committed injuries of a similar kind before. At that time his Honour asked, if he granted a new trial, was there a possibility of showing that the defendant would be liable, he not being aware of any statute showing that a cat was an animal in which a person could have property. There was no property in common law in either dog or a cat. He believed it had been enacted that for stealing a dog there was that property for which the owner could prosecute for the theft. There was larceny by statute. There was no larceny at common law for stealing a cat and there was no property in a cat. But Mr. Seldon called his attention to Reed v. Edwards, which was certainly a peculiar ease bearing upon it. That was a case of game, in which there was no property when they were not on the ground of the owner of the ground. That showed satisfactorily to him that while the game was on the land there was possessory property in the owner of that land to entitle him to it. If game were shot and killed off the land he had no right, but if shot and killed on the land it was his. [The basis of laws against poaching.]

He could not distinguish between that and the cat or any other animal in which there would be no property except when on the land [of its "owner".]. Therefore, the cat being as, it was here, on the premises of the plaintiff, while the cat was there the plaintiff had, according to that decision, sufficient possessory property to complain of the injury to her property. But that brought the case to this - that the action really was an action for trespass for wrongly entering upon land or property of plaintiff and doing damage there, part of the damage being killing cat, or game or bird, or other property, which, while on the land or premises of the party complaining, that party has sufficient possessory property to complain of that injury to her property, and that was therefore an injury to the property.

In this case the plaintiff kept a shop - an open shop. The cat was in the shop and the greyhounds entered the shop and hunted the cat out of the shop, and so caused the injury. They wrongfully entered upon the premises and hunted it out. It was undoubted law that owner of dogs who entered upon the land of another committed no trespass by his dogs going there unless directed them to go, unless urged them on. The defendant was not present on this occasion, but his man was in the street holding another greyhound, and there was no evidence whatever that he sent the dogs in. They went against his will, therefore the question was as to the liability of the owner of a dog for not sufficiently keeping it under his control as to prevent its entering upon the land or premises of another and doing damage. That would raise a very wide question, a question which he saw the Court of Common Pleas - a very strong Court, Justice Wills being one of them - after hearing all the arguments of the case, and taking time to consider it, and writing out the judgment, abstained from string any decision as to the owner of dog being bound to keep it under control so as to be liable for the trespass of that dog on the land of another, in the same way as a person was bound to take care that his ox or sheep did not trespass on the land of others.

In the case of Reed v. Edwards the dog would hunt game on his own account. It was kept by a farmer on land adjoining the land of the plaintiff on which there was game preserved. The gamekeepers of the plaintiff had found the dog before doing injury, and had gone and complained to the owner of the dog about the very [dog in question] going upon that land and doing injury. The defendant, knowing the dog was a bad character, allowed it to be at large in the neighbourhood of the plaintiff's wood, in which there was game, so that the entry of the dog into the wood and the destruction of game was the natural and immediate result of the animal's peculiar and mischievous disposition, which his owner knew and did not control. That was a very peculiar case. Now if the plaintiff in this case could show that any of those greyhounds was of that disposition as was mentioned in the case quoted to go and hunt cats, for instance, on its own account, not merely as dogs always would, but committed trespass on other people's premises - if that could be shown, and that the defendant knew it, thought then that the case would be brought within the application, and a new trial ought to be granted. He therefore should leave it to Mr. Seldon to consider that and if he thought right he might have a new rule [verdict] upon a new trial. If he thought not, the rule would be refused and without costs, because he thought the defendant might have done something in the way of making an offer to plaintiff. He could not enforce it. The defendant had had costs open his non-suit [both parties had to pay their own costs for a non-suit], and he did not think he should be inclined to extend that privilege.
Mr. Peldon : You grant me a new trial, then?
is Honour: If you bring it within that case [Reed v. Edwards].

[Nothing more is reported. His Honour hinted that there was already an out-of-court settlement on offer to Mrs. Allen. It is likely that Mr. Tarr, knowing that his dogs had more than once killed other people's pets, settled out of court rather than risk losing the case and having to pay the value of the cat plus court costs. ]

This is an interesting and important account because the media reported it in depth and reported the discussion of whether a cat was "property." Although it appears to have been settled out of court, the publicity may have served as a warning to dog-owners. The judge was very fair - he had to challenge Mr. Seldon on both statute and case law to see if the case would stand up in court or just be a costly waste of time to the plaintiff. He decided it would stand up in court. Nowadays, cats are considered property and owners can sue over theft and damage, plus there are various animal cruelty laws in force as well.

SOME MORE CASES OF CATS AND PIGEONS OR SONGBIRDS.

A BULLFINCH-HUNTING CAT - Warwick and Warwickshire Advertiser, 19 August 1871
HENRY KEMP v. GEORGE HIRONS. - Mr. Overall appeared for plaintiff; defendant, builder, Clarendon-street, Leamington, was undefended. - This was claim for 20s., the value of a cat shot by defendant. From the evidence it appeared that defendant had suffered considerably from the visits, nocturnal and otherwise, of plaintiff's cat, and had given the Kemps notice that If the cat was not restrained from visiting his house he should shoot it. One evening, Anne Kemp, plaintiff's daughter, was standing at an upstairs window, and saw the defendant shoot the cat. The animal was a very rare one. It was black and white.
His Honour: Had it a tail or not? Had it three legs or four? How was it valuable?
Witness: It was not a Persian or Turkish cat, but it differed from any other cat he had ever seen. She went to defendant, and asked him why he had killed it. He denied having done so.
Defendant, however, contradicted this, and admitted in Court that be destroyed it because that afternoon the animal had come over the garden wall into the house, and killed a piping bullfinch, worth £5. She appeared to have an eye on the other bird which remained in the cage. The cat was a "doughty" old brute, and proved a great nuisance; it was an arrant thief, and frequently robbed his larder. Plaintiff's daughter denied that notice had been given by plaintiff of the cat's predatory habits; but his Honour held that it was an animal of vicious nature; it bird-killing cat. Mr. Overall said all cats were of that nature.
His Honour said could not see that malice had been proved. The cat was evidently a bullfinch hunting cat. (Laughter.) He would reserve judgment, but if he were obliged to give in favour of the plaintiff, it would be only for very nominal sum.

RIVAL PETS. - A TRAGIC STORY - Leamington Advertiser and Beck's List of Visitors, 24 August 1871
KEMP v. HIRONS. This was a motion brought by a man named Kemp, for whom Mr. Overell appeared against Mr. George Hirons, builder, Clarendon-street, to recover £1, the alleged value of a cat shot by the defendant.
Anne Kemp, a young woman, was called and examined by Mr. Overell.
Mr. Overell: Had your father a favourite cat?
Witnsss: Yes.
Mr. Overell: A very rare cat?
Witness: Yes.
His Honour: What made it rare? Was it a cat with a tail or without a tail? Had it three legs or four (laughter)?
Witness: It had four legs and a very fine tail (more laughter).
His Honour: Was it a tabby or what?
Witness: It was a black and white cat.
Mr. Overell: One of rare value?
Witness: Yes.
His Honour: Was it a Turkish cat, a Persian cat, or what?
Witness: I don't exactly know.
His Honour: It was like all other cats one sees about?
Witness: No.
His Honour: Of course it would be different; perhaps it kept select society (laughter). What made it the great value? I see you claim £1; there was no injury to the feelings I presume.
The witness deposed that she saw the defendant shoot the cat, as she sat at her bedroom window. She also saw the cat after it was killed, and went and spoke too defendant about it, but he declared he had not shot it.
Mr. Overell: He does not deny it now.
Defendant said never did deny shooting the cat.
His Honour: Why did you shoot it?
Defendant: It had come into my garden and killed a piping bullfinch, worth £4. It was coming again, after another more valuable bird, and I shot it in my garden.
His Honour: You see there is no malice.
The witness said they did not know the cat went after defendant's birds. Defendant said he had complained to Mr. Kemp twelve months ago, when the cat pulled the tail out of one of his birds. then told him, if the cat was not kept at home, should kill it. After it had killed one of his birds, it came into his garden again, and he then shot it.
His Honour: How do you put your case, Mr. Overell?
Mr. Overell: Supposing there was any damage done by the cat, that cannot be placed as a set off against the value of the cat.
His Honour: The bird was killed the same day the cat was shot. Defendant had other birds, which the cat, evidently a vicious, bird-killing animal, was coming after when shot it.
Mr. Overell said people should not place birds in such positions that cats could get at them. Defendant said the bird wag in his own house, and the cat came there after it.
His Honour: Have you any case in point, Mr. Overell?
Mr. Overell said he had one, but it was only in the "County Court Chronicle." His Honour said he should have been glad of the assistance of that case, as many points of law might be raised. The county did not provide an extensive law library for the County Court. If the cat had been a wild animal, there would doubt defendant would have been justified in killing it.
Mr. Overell: But it was not fera naturae; it was domesticated.
His Honour: I have made my mind up as to the facts; can you show me anything as to the law? If I should feel that the law is against the defendant, I should only give verdict for the plaintiff for a shilling or sixpence (laughter).
Mr. Overell: But it was a valuable cat.
His Honour: You have magnified its value, and put it at £1.
Mr. Overell: The plaintiff would not have sold it for that sum.
His Honour: Perhaps he would not have sold it for 500 guineas, but it does not follow he would be entitled to that sum as damages. It might have belonged to his grandmother, and therefore he might have specially prized it.
Defendant: It was a dirty old brute, and had been a nuisance for years (laughter). It was almost impossible to keep it out of the larder, and it would steal anything.
His Honour said he would reserve his decision, and look into the law on the subject. If it should turn out that malice was a necessary averment, the plaintiff's case would be at an end.
To defendant: Had you any bullfinches left in jour room when you shot the cat?
Defendant: Yes, I had two, and one of them was worth £5.
His Honour: That makes all the difference, Mr. Overell. This was evidently bullfinch-hunting cat (laughter). Where is malice?
Mr. Overell maintained the defendant was not justified in shooting the cat at all.
His Honour reserved his decision, in order that he might have an opportunity of looking into the law bearing on the case.

THE RIVAL PETS. - JUDGMENT - Leamington Advertiser and Beck's List of Visitors - 14 September 1871
It may be recollected that, at the last sitting of! the court, his Honour reserved judgment in the action brought by Henry Kemp, 7, Alveston-place, Leamington, to recover £1 from Mr. George Hirons, builder, Clarendon-street, in the same town, for having wilfully shot plaintiff's cat. The facts were, that the cat entered defendant's premises, and killed a piping bullfinch, which Mr. Hirons valued at £4. The same night, the cat again came into the garden, after another and still more valuable bullfinch, and he then shot the cat. His Honour having stated he was now prepared to deliver his judgment, the parties were called, but neither of them answered.
Mr. Overell, who appeared for the plaintiff, called his Honour's attention to the case of "Whittingham v. Inson," heard before Judge Lonsdale, in the Skipton County Court. In that case, the defendant, who was a gamekeeper, shot the cat, and although it was argued that the plaintiff had no property in the animal after it had left his premises, the judge ruled otherwise, and gave plaintiff a verdict.
His Honour said he had come to the conclusion that a man had property in a domesticated cat; but in the case cited by Mr. Overell, which was the only one he himself had been able to find, the verdict of 10s. was for a very rare cat.
Mr. Overell: No, it was a very common cat; but Mr. Kemp's was a very rare and valuable one.
His Honour: The defendant described it as a "nasty, dirty old brute," which had been a nuisance for years, and was a confirmed and inveterate thief.
Mr. Overell: Oh, it was described as very rare cat.
His Honour, proceeding to deliver judgment, said he had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for the destruction of his domesticated cat - that a man had such property in a domesticated cat as to entitle him to bring an action for damages if it was wilfully destroyed, he had only been able to find the case of Whittingham and Inson, reported in the County Court cases, Vol 1., new series, page 390, which had also been cited by Mr. Overell. Besides the elaborate judgment there given by Judge Lonsdale, he thought the decision could be clearly supported by the line of argument in "Blackstone's Commentaries," where the question of things fera naturae was discussed, and those reduced into possession by industry. The question then arose, in the present case, were there any circumstances which justified Mr. Hirons in shooting the cat? He was of opinion there were not. Had the defendant caught the cat in the act of killing the bird, and there had been no other way of saving the bird's life, that probably would have justified him in killing the cat. It appeared, however, the cat in this case had killed the bird, and had then gone away; but had returned to the defendant's premises, where other birds were kept. The defendant seemed to rely on the notice he had given to the plaintiff some time ago, that he should kill the cat the next time he found it upon his premises. He did not think this notice in anyway affected the judgment which he had come to the conclusion must be given in this case. Under the circumstances, Mr. Hirons might probably have a right of action against the plaintiff for the destruction of his bird; but that point was not before him. Having arrived at the conclusion that there must be a verdict for the plaintiff, the next question was for what amount? Taking the cat as common one, as described by the plaintiff, and a nasty, dirty old brute, as stated by the defendant
Mr. Overell; Plaintiff swore it was a very rare cat.
His Honour; Probably plaintiff did, in the first instance, but when I enquired respecting it, it turned out it was very ordinary cat. Taking into consideration the descriptions given of the cat by the plaintiff and the defendant I shall give a verdict for the plaintiff - damages 5s.
Mr. Overell asked for the expenses of one witness, the daughter of the plaintiff; but his Honour declined to accede to the application, on the ground that she was virtually the plaintiff, as she described the cat as her own.

BIRMINGHAM COUNTY COURT. THIS DAY. Birmingham Mail, 16th November 1871
Before Mr. R. G. Welford, Judge. A CAT CASE. CHATTAWAY V. ABRAHAMS.
This was an action to recover £5., the value of a "tom cat," and for trespass. Mr. Fallows appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Cheston for the defendant. The defendant had been summoned before the Magistrates for cruelly torturing the cat, but it was then proved that the animal was strangled, there being neither an abrasion nor a puncture of the skin, and the case was thereupon dismissed. It appeared from the evidence of a soldier who lodged at the plaintiffs that, on the evening of the 13th of July, the defendant went into Mrs. Chattaway's house, picked up the cat. and remarked "that ---- Tommy's been at my pigeons again; I'll make him rue it." The defendant carried the cat away, and in the evening it was "shot" out of bag into plaintiffs house. The wife of the soldier saw the cat in an upstairs room in the defendant's house, with its legs tied, and a ferret sucking at its neck. The animal was not dead, but was moving about apparently in great pain. Defendant then told the boy to fetch a bag and drown the cat. The defence was that the defendant had frequently complained to Mrs. Chattaway about the cat killing his pigeons, and that she told him the next time it did so he was to give it "a good thrashing." On July 13 the wife of the soldier told him that the cat had killed another of his pigeons, and on going to Mrs. Chattaway's he saw the cat eating a bird. The animal was given to him by the soldier, and defendant took it across to bis house in order to frighten it and deter it killing other pigeons. He gave the cat to a boy to hold whilst he fetched a pigeon, and when he returned the boy's scarf was round its neck, and the animal was nearly dead from strangulation. The cat was ultimately carried into an upstairs room, but defendant denied that it was touched by a ferret, or that he gave instructions to the boy to destroy the animal. His Honour said persons must learn that they could not enter other people's houses, and seize their animals, even if there was a well-grounded suspicion that they had done some mischief. If a domestic animal committed any mischief the owner was liable to be sued for damages. He should give a verdict for £2. for the trespass, and 5s. for the loss of the cat.

BIRMINGHAM COUNTY COURT. YESTERDAY. Birmingham Morning News, 17th November 1871
Before Mr. R. G. Welford, Judge. WHO KILLED THE CAT? CHATTAWAY V. ABRAHAMS. This was an action to recover £5 damages. Mr. Fallows appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cheston for the defendant. The circumstances of the case are as follow: The plaintiff and defendant are neighbours. Plaintiff owned a cat; defendant possessed pigeons. The said pigeons disappeared one by one, and according to the defendant's story plaintiff's cat killed them. On a certain day in July last defendant missed a pigeon, and going into plaintiff's house took up the cat and carried it away. The next that was seen of poor "pussy" was by a soldier, who saw defendant pull her out of a sack. She was then dead. This was the plaintiff's story. Defendant's tale was to the effect that the cat was handed over to him by the plaintiff to punish. He gave the cat to a lad to hold whilst he went for a whip, and whilst he was away the cat commenced to scratch the lad, who tied his scarf round her neck, and in the struggle the cat was strangled. His Honour said people must be taught that they could not go into other person's houses and destroy domestic animals. Even if the cat had killed the pigeons the defendant had a remedy in another way. He gave a verdict for plaintiff for £2 damages for trespass, and £2 damages for trespass, and 5s., the value of the cat.

UPTON V. MURRAY Surrey Comet, 5th December 1874
A claim of £2, value OF pigeons killed. Mr. Ody appeared for plaintiff, landlord of the Horse and Groom, New Wimbledon; and defendant is a greengrocer at the same place. Plaintiff keeps a number of valuable pigeons, and on Oct 12 defendant's cat got into his loft where the pigeons were and killed five. His Honour was satisfied defendant's cat killed the pigeons; but reserved his judgment as to whether he was legally liable.

THE CAT AND THE PIGEONS. Witney Express and Oxfordshire and Midland Counties Herald, 26th August 1875
At our County Court. held on Thursday last, the case Aston v. Frazer was tried. The plaintiff claimed £2 7s. 6d. for some pigeons, killed on two separate occasions by the defendant's cat. They were described as a pair of " blue baldheads," three "silver baldheads," a "short-faced silver Antwerp," a "blue dragon," and a "red mottled tumbler." The defendant said pigeons were worth from 9d. to 13d., and offered 10s. for the whole. His Honor said those were the prices for ordinary pigeons, and these were short-faced, baldheads, and other choice varieties. The cat seemed given to trespassing, and as the law allowed people to keep pigeons, other folks' cats must not kill them. Judgment for the plaintiff for £2.

THE CAT AND THE PIGEONS., Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard, 21st April 1877
Thomas Maskell v. Alfred Moore, of Wroughton. Mr. Ormond appeared for the defendant. It was a claim of 10s., the value of two pigeons alleged to been killed by defendant's cat, on the 26th and 27th of December last. The plaintiff said he did not see the birds killed, but afterwards he went to defendant who admitted his cat killed the birds, but said it served him right he should keep them shut up. A witness named Charles Dockland, a carpenter, said he saw the cat kill the second bird on the top of the house. The defendant took it from the cat, and remarked that that was the second he had that day, and that she always picked out the best bird (laughter). Witness added: That show's she is a good judge. Plaintiff's wife corroborated this statement.
Mr. Ormond, for the defence, argued that the law of trespass could not be made to apply to cats, but His Honour said if Mr. Ormond's arguments held good no man could either keep fowls or pigeons. In his examination, defendant said the pigeons were kept in such a place that any cat could get at them. Last summer several pigeons were taken off by the cats, and he told plaintiff to remove them or he would lose the lot.
His Honour said this made it clear that the defendant knew his cat was in the habit of killing pigeons, and the plaintiff was fully entitled to the verdict, with costs.

ANOTHER PETTY CASE., North Wilts Herald, 21st April 1877
THOMAS MASKELL V. ALFRED MOORE. The plaintiff, apparently a working man, who formerly lived next door to the defendant, a person of independent at Wroughton, for whom Mr. Ormond appeared, sought to recover 10s, the value of two fancy pigeons killed by a cat of the defendant. There was no dispute as to the fact that the defendant's cat killed the pigeons in question; indeed, the defendant was proved to have said that his cat would kill anything it came near, while in evidence the defendant stated that the cat had a taste for singling out the finest and plumpest birds. Mr. Ormond made a long speech for the defendant, the point of which was that he admitted owners of animals likely to trespass or do mischief were bound to keep them fastened up or prevent their escaping. That had been laid down in reference to dogs, though he believed there was no cat law upon record. Still, be contended, it was possible to deduce from the recorded cases in reference to other animals some principle on which to ground the defence to this action. Mr. Ormond proceeded to argue that the nature of a cat being to an extent predatory - its instincts led it to wander to places where rats, mice, &c., were to be found- It was simply impossible to confine it like a dog. Therefore, though the owner of a dog had been held to be liable for the animal pursuing game, because, knowing its habits, he had not restrained the dog; in the case of a cat that could not apply. The hole by which the plaintiff's pigeons entered their home was only five feet from the ground, and Mr. Ormond contended that it was the duty of the plaintiff, knowing the habits of this cat, and of cats generally - for plaintiff had lost other pigeons - to have protected the place by wire. The defendant and his wife were called. They did not deny the loss of the pigeons, but proved the fact that they had suggested plaintiff should put wire over the front of the place. His Honor, who had given several indications of his feeling as to the time this case had lasted, and as a matter of common law as well as common justice, the plaintiff was entitled to recover ,and gave a verdict for the amount claimed, with costs. If Mr. Ormond's argument held good a man would not able to keep pigeons, fowls, or birds of any kind. As to the height of the place from the ground, it was shown that the cat killed the pigeons on the roof of the home, and everyone knew that a cat could get on the roof of a house whether it was high or low.

SHOOTING A CAT Hampshire Advertiser, 2nd February 1878
Joseph Jeans, of Bournemouth, builder, was charged with cruelty to a cat. Mr. J. Druitt, jun., appeared for the prosecution on behalf of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Mr. Trevanion appeared for defendant. From the evidence adduced, it appeared that a cat belonging to a Mrs. Fry, of Bournemouth, had been shot at by the defendant, his reason for shooting it being that it attempted to kill his pigeons. The cat waa taken to Mr. King, veterinary surgeon, of Bournemouth, who was obliged to kill the animal. Defendant admitted shooting the cat, but could not prove that the cat touched his pigeons. Fined £2 6d and 12s costs.

CATS AND PIGEONS. Herts Advertiser, 27th December 1879
Hill v. Hibbert. Plaintiff kept pigeons and defendant, his next door neighbour, a cat. Plaintiff complained that the cat ate, or carried away and destroyed, some of his pigeons, for which he claimed 7s. damage. Defendant set up a counter claim for injury done to his garden by the plaintiff's fowls, and said plaintiff did not take sufficient care to prevent the cat getting at the pigeons. Judgment for the amount claimed, less a set off for injury done to the garden. Each party to pay their own costs.

CHARGE OF STARVING A CAT AT BRIMINGTON Derbyshire Times, 15th September 1880
James Topliss, labourer, Brimington, was charged with cruelly ill-treating cat by withholding water and food from it, to which he pleaded not guilty. Elizabeth Margereson, wife of a labourer, living at Brimington, stated that on the 22nd of August she missed her cat, a white one, and did not see it again until August 31st. It was a half-Persian cat and good condition when she saw it on 22nd. On the 31st of August she was passing the defendant's pigeon-cote and heard a cat she thought was hers mewing, and on calling it by name it put its paw out. She tried to get the door open and could not. She went to the police, and the officer broke the door open. The cat when it came out could scarcely walk, and there was no food or water there. The defendant had locked the cat up before, and stated that he should not release it until she had paid for the pigeons the cat had worried. Her husband, however, threatened to get the police, and he then released it. There were no pigeons in the cote when the policeman broke open the door. Ann Margereson, wife of Henry Margeresor, gave corroborative testimony. In answer to the defendant, both witnesses stated that they did not see him.
Defendant: No, I was not in the parish; I was in Liverpool.
P.c. Arms proved being called by c complainant, and finding the cat locked up the pigeon-cote. It was very weak, and could not stand. As he was going down to the place he saw the defendant and said, "Now, James, what about this cat. Mrs Margereson tells me you have had it since last Sunday week without either food or water." He said "Yes, the cat is there, but what about my pigeons?"
Defendant: It has never been locked up; it locked itself up."
The constable continuing, said he told defendant that he had no right to starve the cat because he had lost his pigeons. He had his remedy, and had better let the cat out. It might be a serious case, and he would rather defendant went down with him. Topliss refused to go down, but said he would send his son down during the day to release the cat. He said also " Harry has given it some water." Witness asked him when and he said he could not say, perhaps two or three days ago. Witness then went and released the cat and brought it to Mr Martin, the veterinary surgeon, who said it had been starved. Superintendent Carline said the cat when he saw it was in a dreadful condition. Defendant said bis sons knew most of this, as he had nothing to do with cat or pigeons. He called his son, Harry Topliss, who stated that the cat hid itself in the cote, which he fastened night. Next morning he found the two pigeons had been killed and the cat was there. He kept it there a week, giving it the two pigeons to eat, and some water in a pie dish. When his father came home he told him to let the cat loose. Frederick Topliss gave corroborative evidence, and the Bench dismissed the case, considering defendant was not to blame in this case, having been away.

ILL-USING CAT. Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette, 5th September 1884
To-day, at the Borough Police Court, Thomas McGoff, a youth, was charged at the instance of Inspector Alexander with having ill-treated a cat. A woman stated that the defendant resided in the same house as herself in the Brewery-bank, Monkwearmouth. On the morning of Tuesday, the 12th ult., defendant was in the yard, and witness saw cat go towards some pigeons, when he seized it by the tail and threw it' on the roof with some force, but it fell to the ground again and rolled about the yard for some time, apparently in great pain. Defendant called a witness to prove that he only threw a coal at the cat, and as there was a doubt, the case was dismissed.

THE CAT AND THE PIGEONS Birmingham Mail, 12th October 1885
William Hath, 106, Gerrard Street, jeweller, sued Thos. Poyner. 110, Gerard Street, gardener, to recover 15s., the value of four pigeons and one fowl, killed by defendant's cat on the 3rd July last. Plaintiff said defendant's cat got into his pen and killed the birds.
The Judge: Did you see the cat do it?
Plaintiff: I have witnesses who saw the cat eating them.
The Judge: Was the cat seen in the pen?
Plaintiff: Oh, yes; eating the fowl.
Defendant's wife said she did not know anything about the matter at all till the plaintiff came and throwed a dead hen Into her shop. It was not their cat.
Plaintiff: It was her cat that killed the pigeons, and then she would not own it. She brought the cat with her when she came to the shop.
Defendant: We had a cat we brought with us, but it fled at the canary and bit its leg off, and we drownded it. The cat that killed the pigeons was Mr. Casell's cat.
Defendant's ownership of the cat not having been proved, his Honour gave verdict for the defendant, without costs.

A CAT AMONGST THE PIGEONS. Alderley & Wilmslow Advertiser, 11th December 1885
At the Stockport County Court, on Friday, before His Honour Judge Hughes, Q.C., Joseph Ellor, a grinder, of Portwood. sought to restorer from James Normansell, butcher, of Great Portwood-street, the sum of £1 10s, the value of pigeons alleged to have been killed by the defendant's cat. Mr J. Grundey, solicitor, appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff, in the course of his evidence, said the cat had entered his cote and killed nine pigeons. He traced the cat to defendant's house. In answer to a question by the Judge the plaintiff further said he knew nearly every cat in the neighbourhood, but he did not recognise this one at first "because it lived in the front" (Laughter.). A witness said he saw the cat in the cote, and afterwards heard the defendant own it. It had eaten one of the pigeons, and there was blood on Its nose and on the floor.
Mr Grundey contended that it was necessary to prove actual knowledge of the fierceness of the cat.
His Honour:You don't want to know a cat's fierceness to kill pigeons.
Mr Grundey still contended that it was necessary to show that the cat had previously committed a similar offence.
His Honour said Mr. Grundey was right to a certain extent, as if a man claimed for the bite of a dog it would have to be proved that the dog had previously bitten somebody else, but it was natural for a cat to kill pigeons.
Mr Grundey quoted Lord Chief Justice Blackburne's decision in a similar case, that if an animal was not known to be mischievous, or dangerous, a person was entitled to suppose that it was harmless, and therefore there no reason for keeping it in.
His Honour (referring to the quoted): That is the case of a monkey. (Laughter.)
Mr. Grundey, continuing, said there were exceptions to every rule, and the cat in question might be a particularly tame one, therefore they ought not to deal with it upon their general knowledge of cats. There were some cats that would not touch birds - he had one. He did not deny that the cat worried the pigeons, but he did not admit that it had killed pigeons before.
His Honour expressed his opinion that Mr. Grundey's contention did not hold good, and Mr Grundey then raised objection to the amount of the sum claimed, which he maintained was far too large.
The defendant was sworn, and stated that none of th pigeons were worth more than a shilling. The plaintiff had offered to square the matter for 10s, but on him (defendant) refusing to agree to that the defendant said He would put it in the court and put more to it."
In answer to His Honour, the plaintiff said had got 2s 6d for six of the pigeons and the others he had had to throw in an ashpit. Verdict for plaintiff for £1.

THE CAT AMONGST THE PIGEONS. - various UK, April 1886
AT the Birmingham County Court, Alfred Edwards, 28, Richard Street, brought an action against John Coyne, 1 house, 4 Court, Richard Street, to recover £1, the value of eight pigeons which had been killed by the defendant's cat. The plaintiff spoke to eight of his pigeons having been killed by the defendant's cat.
His Honour - How do you know it was his cat?
Plaintiff - Because he keeps a milk shop. (Laughter.)
His Honour - But that does not show that it was the defendant's cat.
Plaintiff - She was seen in the pen.
A boy was called who said he saw defendant's cat in Edwards's pigeon pen. She was gnawing at one pigeon, and three others lay on the floor dead. Defendant's cat was "a white-coloured cat, with a tabby tail." Mrs Coyne appeared on behalf of her husband, and she said, in reply to the judge, that she had got "a little bit of a cat, but it was not twelve months old yet." It was not able to kill a pigeon. (Laughter.)
His Honour - Twelve months and not able to kill a pigeon.
Witness - No, it could not kill a pigeon, gentlemen.
His Honour - What is your cat like? Is it white with a tabby tail? (Laughter.)
Witness - No it's a black cat. Continuing, she said: "Plaintiff breaks my windows and throws his rubbish on my door, and I had a blow with a stone on my arm about a fortnight ago from his pigeon place, and I cannot use it; and every' morning, especially on Sundays, he gets pigeon-flying. I cannot trust them about the door, swearing, throwing, and using bad language all the blessed time. Gentlemen, I never insulted them or said a word to them."
Plaintiff said that on another occasion defendant's cat killed four other pigeons. He saw the cat in the pen.
His Honour - Why didn't you kill the cat then?
Witness - l didn't know whether I should be doing right.
Mrs Coyne - He hadn't better kill any cat, I can tell him. (Laughter.)
His Honour gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 10s. Mrs Coyne left the court saying that "she would never encourage that chap with a penny."

THE CAT AMONG PIGEONS. - various UK, October & November 1886
Judge Prentice yesterday, in the Bow county court, London, gave his decision in the case of Scudder v. Roy. This was an action brought to recover the sum of £3 for damage done to some pigeons by the defendant's cat. His Honour said that the plaintiff could not recover for the damage done by defendant's cat. It was perfectly lawful to keep a cat, and it was impossible to restrain them from going on other people's premises. He was of opinion that he could not recover, and should give judgment for the defendant without costs.

THE CAT AMONGST THE PIGEONS. Gloucestershire Echo, 18th January 1888
A. J. Barnes, tobacconist, &c., Aldate street, sued Henry Creese, of Mitre-street, to recover £2 for the lose of a prize pigeon alleged to have been killed by defendant's cat. Plaintiff gave evidence tending show that the pigeon was really worth £10, and that a sister of the same had recently taken a prize at the Crystal Palace Pigeon Show. Plaintiff saw the cat on his premises with the pigeon in its mouth. He drove the cat away, secured the pigeon, but it was dead. Defendant contended that it was not his cat, and that there were others like it in the neighbourhood. Plaintiff swore it was the cat, as he had seen it before and knew it. His Honour gave judgment for the amount claimed. Defendant asked his Honour what he had better do with the cat, and Honour smilingly replied "Oh, tie it up!"

THE CAT AND THE PIGEONS., London Evening Standard, 12th October 1888
A respectable-looking middle-aged woman applied to the Magistrate at the Marylebone Police court to-day, under the following circumstances:- She said there was a difference between her and a lodger next door. She kept a cat, and he kept pigeons. The pigeons came on to the wall, and her cat had killed three of the birds. The man came to her about it, and she offered him 1s. as compensation, but he refused it, called her names, and threatened to kill her cat. Shortly afterwards her cat came bounding down off the wall with something in her mouth, and Applicant exclaimed, "You have poisoned my cat," and the man replied by shouting out, "Ah, ah, ah!" (laughter). Afterwards the landlord made the man send his pigeons away, and subsequent to that her cat was poisoned. The poor thing looked ill, and she said to it, "Poor Scotty, what is the matter?" She got her husband to take the cat to a veterinary surgeon for she did not care what it cost her if she could but save the cat. The surgeon did what he could for the cat, but it died. He said it bad been poisoned with rat poison. A summons was granted for killing a domestic animal.

THE CAT AND THE PIGEONS. Gloucester Citizen, 15th May 1889
William Thomas v. Thomas Luker. Mr. Langley Smith for plaintiff, and Mr. Yates for defendant. This was a claim for 15s. damage alleged to have been done to plaintiff's pigeons hy defendant's black and white cat, which got into the pen by the trap, and was eating part of the pigeon when the affair was discovered by plaintiff. Several of the pigeons were killed. The defence was that the defendant's cat was locked in the house at the time the occurrence was alleged to have taken place. Judgment for the plaintiff.

THE CAT AMONGST THE PIGEONS. Runcorn Examiner, 20th July 1889
John Holland, labourer of Booth-st., Frodsham, sued Edward Caldwell, baker, of Booth-st., for the loss of ten pigeons valued at 1s. each destroyed by the defendant's cat. Mr. E. Wynne Humphreys appeared for the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his witnesses proved that the cat had taken seven pigeons and the defendant admitted that he had been told of the affair. Judgment was given for seven shillings with costs.

[CAT & PIGEONS] Staffordshire Chronicle, 4th January 1890
His Honour Judge Jordan knaps pigeons. He confessed it with sorrow on Thursday, so that when a youth came before him and complained that a neighbour's eat had been eating his homing birds, hie Honour knew "what it was" himself. The owner of the cat contended that the well-known liking of the domestic cat for pigeons alive or dead - but alive preferred - should have made the owner of the pigeons more cautious. But his Honour took the common sense view that cat is not to be licensed to do indiscriminate damage when its owner allows it to wander at will. Other points taken far the defence were that the pigeons didn't belong plaintiff - but then it turned out that the plaintiff had bred them; and that the cat did not belong to the defendant, but it appeared that the defendant had threatened plaintiff with a warrant for detaining the cat after it had finished its meal and was ready to shake heads and go home. His Honour was against the defendant on all these issues, but when it came to the value of the birds, confessed that he didn't see why the defendant should ban pay extra because the plaintiff had sent his pigeons to Milford, Rugeley, Lichfield, Tamworth, Nuneaton, and Rugby. It was explained to him that the training made them worth so much more in the market, and finally his Honour compromised the matter by giving the plaintiff half the price at which he had valued his birds, and telling him that it was a liberal allowance.

THE CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS Oxfordshire Weekly News, 3rd September 1890
At Woolwich Police-court, on Friday, James Butterfill was charged with stealing a cat from Benjamin Thomas Carter. The parties reside at Sydney-terrace, King's highway, Plumstead. Complainant said that his cat disappeared on the 28th of June, and he spoke about it to defendant, who complained that the cat had stolen his brother-in-law's pigeons.
Mr. Marsham: What was the value of the cat?
Carter: It was worth £5 to me. We have no end of mice.
Mr. Marsham: You can get a good many mousers for £5. The market value of a cat is about 10s.
Defendant said the cat killed his brother-in-law's pigeons, and they caught it in the shed where the pigeons were. It killed four pigeons one day, and four another.
Mr. Marsham: You should have sued the owner in the County Court.
Defendant: We did, and were non-suited; but the judge said if he caught the cat in his shed he would kill it.
Mr. Marsham: You might be justified in that if you caught the cat in the act, and did it to defend your pigeons.
Defendant: That is just what we did. The cat killed six pigeons one day, and had just killed four more when we caught it.
R. Ashdown, the brother-in-law, said the pigeons killed by the cat were worth £5, being trained birds.
Mr. Marsham observed that if he destroyed the cat while in the act of stealing the pigeons he would be justified in so doing. The summons was dismissed.

THE LAW OF CATS AND PIGEONS South Wales Gazette, 5th September 1890
At Woolwich Police-court the other day James Buttertill was summoned for stealing a cat from Benjamin Thomas Carter. The parties reside at Plumstead. Complainant said that his cat disappeared on the 25th of June, and he had not seen it since. He spoke about it to defendant, who admitted that he had put the cat into a basket, meaning to take it away and give it "a hiding," but that it jumped out of the basket and escaped. He complained that the cat had stolen his brother-in-law's pigeons.-
Mr. Marsham (the magistrate): What was the value of the cat?
Carter It was worth £5 to me. We have no end of mice.
Mr. Marsham: You can get a good many mousers for £5. The market value of a cat is about 10s.
In cross-examination the complainant said he believed that the defendant's wife took the cat, and that the defendant had killed it. A little girl was called and said she saw Mrs. Butterfill take like the cat from Mrs. Carter's door, and carry it into her own house.
Defendant said the cat killed his brother-in-law's pigeons, and they caught it in the shed where the pigeons were. It killed four pigeons one day and four another.-
Mr. Marsham You should have sued the owner in the County Court.
Defendant . We did, and were non-suited; but the judge said if he caught a cat in his shed he would kill it.
Mr. Marsham: You might be justified in that if you caught the cat in the act, and did it to defend your pigeons.
Defendant: That is just what we did. The cat kilked six pigeons one day, and had just killed four more when we caught it.-
R. Ashdown, the brother-In-law, said that the pigeons killed by the cat were worth £S. being trained birds.
Mr. Marsham observed that if any one had taken the cat it appeared to have been defendant's wife, and not defendant, and if the defendant had destroyed the cat while in the act of stealing the pigeons he would be justified in so doing. The summons must be dismissed.

CAT AND PIGEON LAW Bristol Times and Mirror, 1st May, 1896
At the Bristol County Court yesterday, before his Honour Judge Austin, a case of interest to owners of cats and pigeons came on for hearing. were one Samuel Smith, of 7, Gordon-road, St. George, a working gardener, and George S. Gerrish, a market gardener, who lived immediately opposite, and the parties were respectively represented by Mr. Sibly (Sibly and Dickinson) and Mr. Holman Gregory , Hirst, and Sandford). Mr. Sibly said the claim was for the loss of a valuable black tom cat, and defendant had paid 10s. into court, without admitting liability; but he took it practically that the fact was admitted that defendant shot the cat; if not, he thought his Honour would decide on the evidence that it was fully proved. The first question he proposed to deal with was the value of the tom cat, which he would admit might be a little difficult to sustain. Plaintiff, however, would tell his Honour that the cat was a valuable one.
His Honour inquired what made the cat so valuable,
Mr. Sibly remarked that he was unable to produce it, for defendant not only killed, but buried it. Some report had appeared in the papers that defendant had exhumed the body for the purposes of the case, but plaintiff had not chance of seeing it.
His Honour: You might have come to me for an order to inspect the carcase (laughter).
Mr. Sibly, continuing, remarked that there were two ways which the cat might be valued. If not at least of rare breed, its beauty was more than skin deep, for it was a splendid ratter, and frequently proved its prowess in that direction by laying as many as four dead rodents at a time at its master's feet. Plaintiff kept some pigs to help him with his rent, and where pigs were there rats would congregate, and the cat being so very useful in keeping down these pests it could not be said that the claim of £5 was an exaggerated one.
His Honour: What was its age?
Mr. Sibly: Just about two years old; it was in its prime (laughter). His friend [polite term referring to the other solicitor]had counter-claimed for certain pigeons. This particular cat killed rats, but not pigeons; and he believed as a matter of fact, that a cat which did this would not touch birds. It was only felines too lazy to hunt for rats and mice that went for birds.
His Honour: I do not accept this; you will have to call expert evidence if I am to accept it.
Mr. Sibly said at any rate his friend, to make good the counter-claim, would have first to prove that plaintiff's cat killed the pigeons.
His Honour: And that you were aware that the cat was a pigeon-killer.
Mr. Sibly agreed and said he would address the court on the latter point, if necessary, later on.
Mr. Gregory thought that the cat was trespassing, and that, in consequence, any damage which resulted therefrom was the owner's liability.
His Honour said the habit of a cat was to stray, and he had not hitherto held in that court that the owner was liable for such trespass.
Mr. Gregory had cases bearing on the point, and if anything turned on it he would discuss it.
His Honour said he should be pleased to hear it when the occasion arose. Doubtless Mr. Gregory would be able to reverse that which he had been accustomed to hold.
Mr. Sibly, proceeding to deal with the facts, said plaintiff was in the road near his house on March 18, and saw defendant on his own premises, gun in hand. Plaintiff's cat had just previously crossed over the road to defendant's pigsty. The cat, seeing the defendant , became alarmed, ran on to the top of a small outhouse where the pigeons were kept, and defendant shot at it, knocking it over. Knowing the nature of the defendant, plaintiff did not at once speak to him, but waited for a convenient opportunity. Some two or three days after he met defendant in road, and accused him of shooting his cat, adding that he expected to be compensated for its loss.
His Honour: Why didn't he mention it at the time?
Mr. Sibly: He was afraid to go on to his premises; but the first time he met him on the high road he spoke to defendant, and then something was said about the pigeons. There was a question, of course, as to which cat killed the pigeons. Defendant had accused other persons, and, indeed, had, with the owner's consent, actually killed the very cat which he stated had done the damage.
Plaintiff, on being called, corroborated the opening statement of his solicitor in reference to the general facts. He stated that when he tackled the defendant on the Saturday, Gerrish said he had been on the look-out, but had shot plaintiff's cat in mistake for a tabby which he believed to be the cat killing his pigeons. He offered to give plaintiff a kitten in place of the cat, and stated that that very evening he had shot three cats.
Cross-examined. plaintiff said he would swear that the cat was shot on the 18th March and not on the 17th, as appeared in the particulars. His cat was a black one with a grey rust [ruff?].
Mr. Holman Gregory argued at length that, supposing the cat shot was plaintiff's, defendant had done so in protection of his property, and therefore was not liable; and if the cat was plaintiff's, then that defendant could claim for the value of the four valuable pigeons which it had killed immediately prior to its being shot.
Defendant, on being called, swore that it was impossible, owing to the formation of the roof of the pigeon house, for plaintiff, when in the road, to have seen the cat shot. From the 1st of March to the 17th thirty valuable show pigeons were reduced to fourteen, and from the latter date to the 17th four more were killed. He would swear that he only shot one cat on the night in question. When plaintiff told him he was the owner he offered to replace the cat, but when plaintiff talked about full money compensation he said he agreed if plaintiff would say ditto with regard to the pigeons. It was true that, with the consent of the owner, he had drowned a cat, but that was some time before the17th of March. At six o'clock that night the birds were all safe, and two hours later he saw a cat struggling outwards through a hole in the roof of the pigeon-house. He got his gun and stopped it. The cat was killed, but remained fixed in the roof, and did not fall in the way plaintiff had described. Defendant's man got a ladder and removed the body of the cat from the hole. Its mouth was covered with blood and feathers, as was also the claws. On entering the loft defendant found four prize birds killed and partly devoured. He had not buried the cat, and hearing that he was to be sued, he sent for Mr. E.T. parker, who was and expert, to value it. It as a black-brown cat.
A labourer in the employ of the defendant corroborated this.
Mr. E.T. Parker said he had seen the cat, and its outside value was from 6s. to 10s.
His Honour, in giving judgment, said he was going to give a verdict which he thought would not please either the plaintiff of the defendant (laughter). He did not believe that the plaintiff had seen the cat killed, but that the animal was killed he had no doubt. He found that Mr. Gerrish was not justified in shooting the cat, as it was not in hot pursuit of the pigeons. He was going to allow the plaintiff 10s. for te loss of the cat, for he did not wish to encourage people to take the law into their own hands. There was no more revolting cruelty than the practice of poisoning cats which often took place, though he did non mean that Mr. Gerrish had acted with revolting cruelty. As 10s. had been paid into court, there would be a verdict for the defendant, but, for the reasons he had stated, without costs. On the counter-claim made by the defendant for the loss of the pigeons he should give a verdict for him for a shilling, without costs.

[CAERAU COURT CASE, CAT VS. PIGEONS]. Glamorgan Gazette, 7th November 1924
[Court case between Thomas Jones, collier, Tonna Road, Caerau] and William Rowlands, a colliery examiner, of Tonna Road, Caerau, for £18, said to be the value of pigeons alleged to have been killed by a cat belonging to Rowlands. Mr Gwyn Rees (instructed by Mr W.M. Thomas) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J.R. Snape defended. The proceedings, which commenced on Thursday afternoon, lasted until mid-day on Friday.
Thomas Jones, collier, Tonna Road, Caerau, said on the morning in question he happened to look at plaintiff's pigeon cot, and saw a cat half-way out of the entrance, He fetched defendant, and they chased the cat, which, however, eluded them, escaping over the next back wall. Plaintiff attempted to knock up Rowlands several times, but failed. They then returned to the pigeons' cot, where they found eight birds dead and four small ones dying.
Mr Snape: How many cats did you chase? - One, sir. His Honour: Is there more than one cat? Mr Snape: It is my case sir, that the plaintiff has mistaken the cats. At this point two cats were placed before His Honour, which were very similar in appearance.
Plaintiff, who said he was living in Tonna Road at the time of the alleged killing of the pigeons, corroborated the last witness, adding that it was not until 10.30 that he was able to see the defendant. When he was able to see him he asked him what he was going to do about it, and whether he was going to compensate him. Defendant relied that it was not his cat. He (plaintiff) had previously warned Rowlands about his cat. He valued the pigeons at £18, adding that they were racing pigeons, and had brought him £45 in prizes since 1918. He emphatically added that neither of the two cats produced was the cat which killed his pigeons. The culprit was a lighter-coloured cat than those produced.
Mr Snape here contended that in view of this admission he had no case to answer, but His Honour thought otherwise. Plaintiff now said that the cat which killed his kittens [sic - he meant pigeons] was known as Kitty, and if the defendant would give him permission, he would produce the cat in Court. His Honour instructed that Rowlands was to give plaintiff permission to get the cat, who, in his turn, was to bring the cat before the Court the following day, until when the case would be adjourned.
From the resumption the following day a long period was devoted to legal argument, eventually plaintiff being put into the box again. He said he had found the cat which had killed the pigeons. This cat and the other two were placed side by side, and His Honour remarked that they were very much alike. Huntley went on to explain that he had found the cat at Rowland's son's house at the top of Caerau, and then went on to describe the cot. In cross-examination by Mr Snape, he denied that he had blamed his wife for leaving the trap [door of pigeon cot] open. He also admitted that he thought the bars placed 3 inches apart inside the trap would be able to keep the cats out.
W.F. Thomas, Tonna Road, Caerau, said he had had experience with pigeons and thought £18 as the value of the pigeons was a very reasonable offer. His Honour: Four of the pigeons are priced at 30s each. Witness: All I can say is I wish I could have bought them at that price. What would you say if anyone said that a cat could get though bars three inches apart? - I would have hit them on the head with the bar. (Laughter.) Defendant now said he had lived in Tonna Road over 30 years, and had kept cats all the time, and had had no complaint about them. When Huntley first went to Tonna Road he helped him build his first cot. He went on to describe his talk with Huntley, and told him he had made a mistake, as his cat was in the house all the night of the alleged killing. Kitty (the cat) had been under the stairs in a cupboard all night. The one produced in Court was a tom-cat named "Snowball," which belonged to his son.
Mattie Rowlands, daughter of the last witness, said Kitty was under the stairs, and Snowball was on the mat in front of the fire. She, however, corrected herself. Snowball was not there at all. Margaret Rowlands, another daughter, gave similar evidence, adding that she had put Kitty under the stairs. His Honour: Where was Snowball? - Snowball was not there. Are you sure it was not your cat that killed the pigeons? - Yes, sir. Thomas John Rowlands, son of the defendant, gave evidence to the effect that Snowball was his cat, and had been his since the 23rd April last.
His Honour remarked that the case was a very difficult one to decide. He was quite sure that the witnesses on both sides had not confined themselves to telling the truth. The evidence called had not proved that the cat which did the damage belonged to the defendant, and the action would therefore fail. Judgment was given for defendant, with costs.