nd sank back in his seat.

"That is all!" he ejaculated feebly.

"One question, if you please, madam," said Judge Witherspoon. "May I be
permitted to"--he coughed as a suppressed snicker ran round the
court--"that is--may I not--er--Oh, look here! How did you happen to
have the idea of getting a dog?"

Mrs. Appleboy turned the full moon of her homely countenance upon the
court.

"The potato peel came down that way!" she explained blandly.

"What!" exploded the dealer in rubber novelties.

"The potato peel--it spelled 'dog,'" she repeated artlessly.

"Lord!" deeply suspirated Pepperill. "What a case! Carry me out!"

"Well, Mr. Tutt," said the judge, "now I will hear what you may wish to
say upon the question of whether this issue should be submitted to the
jury. However, I shall rule that the indictment is sufficient."

Tutt elegantly rose.

"Having due respect to Your Honor's ruling as to the sufficiency of the
indictment I shall address myself simply to the question of _scienter_.
I might, of course, dwell upon the impropriety of charging the defendant
with criminal responsibility for the act of another free agent even if
that agent be an animal--but I will leave that, if necessary, for the
Court of Appeals. If anybody were to be indicted in this case I hold it
should have been the dog Andrew. Nay, I do not jest! But I can see by
Your Honor's expression that any argument upon that score would be
without avail."

"Entirely," remarked Witherspoon. "Kindly go on!"

"Well," continued Tutt, "the law of this matter needs no elucidation. It
has been settled since the time of Moses."

"Of whom?" inquired Witherspoon. "You don't need to go back farther
than Chief Justice Marshall so far as I am concerned."

Tutt bowed.

"It is an established doctrine of the common law both of England and
America that it is wholly proper for one to keep a domestic animal for
his use, pleasure or protection, until, as Dykeman, J., says in Muller
vs. McKesson, 10 Hun., 45, 'some vicious propensity is developed and
brought out to the knowledge of the owner.' Up to that time the man who
keeps a dog or other animal cannot be charged with liability for his
acts. This has always been the law.

"In the twenty-first chapter of Exodus at the twenty-eighth verse it is
written: 'If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die; then the ox
shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner
of the ox shall be quit. But i