May Double The Verdict

The dam age suit of Wm. Bell vs. Charles Rhinehart was 011 trial in tlie circuit court Friday and Saturday. The complainant asked tor $1,500 damages tor having been bitten by a dog belonging to the defendant about a year ago. A few days after being bitten blood poisoniug set in and tor some time Bell's chances tor lite were very slim. He did recover finally but his sufferings previous to that event were terrible. The plaintiff showed that the dog was a vieious brute and had once before bitten a person so that medical assistance was necessary. The defense sought to prove that Bell's ill condition was more responsible to his mode of living than to any dog bite but the jury did not incline to this view and on Saturday afteruoon rendered a cömpromise verdict for $465. The statute under which the suit was brougbtis t'ound in Howell's Annotated, 2119, section 3, and is somewhat peculiar. It almost obligates the judge to doublé the verdict of the jury. E. P. Allen, attorney for the defense, made a motion on Monday asking the judge to withhold such a decisión until the point could be argued, to which Judge Kinne consented. Capt. Allen's motion isbased on the claim that the declaration in the case had two counts under the common law and one under the statute, and the supreme court has already rendered a decisión that where the declaration ernbodies two counts, one in the common law and one in the statntory, the judgment shall not be doubled by the judge.