Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/428

 {Sug-) Jestive Cases. 6. So here was the future complainant, young Mack, Pulling hard at the bridle with all might and main, The mule firmly fixed in the midst of the track, While clattering down on them both came the train.

The mule met his fate, 'mid the engine's harsh thunder, (A lesson that nerve may be quite out of place); While the boy, dazed with fright, as his steed flew from under, Jumped down in the ditch and lay flat on his face. 8.

And now was presented a nice point of law : The railroad must pay for the mule's scattered bits, But the boy had escaped without physical flaw, And why should he sue for upsetting his wits? For shock without contact, as some say, must be Too remote to consider as real legal harm; If the body is clearly from injury free, No claim can be based on mere mental alarm.

Massachusetts, and England, and New York, together, Were strong for defendant in stating this rule; But none of these courts had precisely said whether The doctrine applied to a case with a mule. So this court held that, though the poor mule's fragments might Be extremely remote, yet the boy's lawful fright Was by no means the same; nor was he clearly foolish In what he had done; 'twas the mule that was mulish. Though bound for the mule's sake to stick to the track, He was not to be bound by the faults of his jack. 10.

Moral : In your Digest, just look s. v. " Mule," And enter the following rule : When an obstinate jack Will not budge from the track, Keep away, if you can, from his heels; Let the mule have his jest. While the train does the rest, And you throw yourself down by the wheels. Though you suffer not even a bruise, You may claim any sum that you choose; For, although the poor animal's hurled into bits, You'll g<t round compensation for losing your wits.

395