“Not necessarily so, my lord.”
After a little re-examination as to whether there were any marks of a dog’s teeth upon the duck’s neck, the case was closed for the prosecution.
“Gentlemen of the jury,” said the counsel for the prisoner, “from the questions which I have put to the principal witness called for the prosecution you will have already anticipated the case I have to submit to you on the part of the defendant. He is a perfect stranger to this part of the country, and has fallen a victim, far away from his friends, to his efforts to rescue a helpless creature from suffering.
“He was passing along the highway thinking only of getting to the end of his journey, and little dreaming of the misfortune which was in store for him. When he came to the gate, hearing a noise, which the witness has described, his attention was attracted to the cause of it, which was a little dog worrying one of the ducks, and of course alarming the rest. The prisoner, I am informed, is a kindly-disposed, humane person, and it frequently happens that these qualities cause their possessor to get into trouble which a less considerate person would perhaps avoid. He was too late to be of much service to the poor duck, but the dog ran away at his approach like a little mischievous cur, as he doubtless was. This is the reason why the witness never saw the dog. The prisoner rang the poor bird’s neck to put it out of its pain. I trust any one of you would have done the same under similar circumstances.
“And yet this humane action has brought this worthy man before you under a disgraceful criminal charge, of which, however, I feel confident you will acquit him.
“What can be more absurd than to suppose for one moment that a man who intended to steal a duck would go in the broad daylight, and take it from a field, and wring its neck and put it under his arm within sight of a witness a hundred yards behind him, and then having carefully provided this evidence of his guilt would carry the stolen property in the direction of the owner’s house where it would be certain to be identified? My lord very properly put the question whether the witness heard the dog barking, but my learned friend unintentionally cleared up that difficulty by suggesting, in a question to the witness, that the dog might have seized the duck by the neck. Now, if a dog has a duck’s neck or any part of a duck in his mouth, I think that it is quite enough to account for the animal not barking; so much for the witness not hearing the dog. As for his not seeing him, it would be very odd if he had, when my client had gone into the field and frightened the dog away before the witness came up.
“Gentlemen, as the unfortunate man before you is debarred by the law from giving evidence in his own defence, and the only other witness to the transaction has been called for the prosecution, I have necessarily no evidence to lay before you; but as the only witness whom you have heard admits there might have been a dog although he did not see it, I confidently ask you to act in accordance with the humane maxim of the law, and give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt.”
“Well, gentlemen,” said the chairman, “I need not recapitulate the evidence. I have heard the tale of a ‘Cock and a Bull,’ but I never heard till this day of a tale of a dog and a duck. Consider your verdict.”
The jury did so, and without leaving the box returned a verdict of
“Not Guilty.”