Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/209

 182

A LEGAL AVIARY. By R. Vashon Rogers. IN Basle, in 1474, an unfortunate cock laid an egg! In this nineteenth century such an act would be but a nine days' won der, or the gallant bird would find a restingplace in some dime museum; but in the days when Christopher Columbus was young such an act was unlawful and of immense and serious importance. And no wonder, for from such eggs sprang the cockatrice, with its death-darting eye. This egg being produced, quickly the criminal law was set in motion against Sir Chanticleer. He was hurried to court, formally arraigned, and hav ing pleaded not guilty, had counsel assigned for his defence. The prosecution proved that cocks' eggs were greatly sought after for mixing in certain magical preparations with such things as " eye of newt, and toe of frog, wool of bat and tongue of dog," et id genus omne; that a sorcerer would rather have such an egg than own the philosopher's stone, and that, in pagan lands, Satan em ployed witches to hatch such eggs and from them proceeded animals most hostile and injurious to persons of the true Christian faith. The advocate for the poor bird admitted the facts of the case, but asked where was the evidence of any legal animus — any mens rea — in his client, or of any harm be ing done to man or beast; besides, quoth he, the laying of the egg was an involun tary act and therefore not punishable by law. Further, if sorcery was imputed, the cock was innocent, for the books contained no record of Satan ever having made a com pact with one of the brute creation. The public prosecutor, in reply, alleged that though the devil did not make unholy contracts with the brute creation, neverthe less he sometimes entered into them; and that the case mentioned in the Scriptures

of the destruction of the swine possessed with devils was conclusive authority for the punishment of the accused, even though he was an involuntary agent. So the poor cock was convicted and condemned to a cruel and ignominious death, as a sorcerer, and (with the fatal egg) was burned at the stake with all due form and judicial solem nity. Hemmerlin, a most celebrated lawyer of Zurich, records all the voluminous plead ings in this case in his " Tractatus de Exorcismis." Far more prosaic was the trial, in the Bir mingham County Court, of an action brought by little Miss Florence Walford against George Mathews to recover damages for in juries sustained by her because the defendant wrongfully and negligently kept a savage and dangerous cock-fowl, knowing it to be savage and dangerous and accustomed to injure mankind, whereby Florrie was pecked and injured. The judge had never heard of such a case before, but as the evidence proved that the cock had aforetime showed its vicious nature by pecking other children, and the defendant, knowing it, had not shut up the savage and dangerous bird, his Honor gave a verdict of one pound damages and sixteen shillings, the amountof Miss Walford's doctor's bill. Whether this peccant fowl was stewed, or boiled, or broiled, the reporter saith not. At the last sittings of the court of Queen's Bench, in Montreal, one Ernest Bolduc was indicted for creating a public nuisance by keeping two roosters which crew all through the night, and especially in early morn. There were five witnesses for the prosecu tion; one swore that one of the birds was the largest he had ever seen and made most unearthly noises, " with his lofty and shrill