City of Louisville
Against } ^Ord
James Rudd
To Hon B. Magoffin
Governor of Kentucky

Your Petitioner James Rudd states that "he was summoned to appear before the Judge of the city court of Louisville at the court house thereof in said city, on the fifth day of July 1862 to answer the city of Louisivlle and to show cause if any he could why he should not be fined TwentyDollars for allowing and permitting his vicious dog to run at large on the — day of July 1862 in said city and on divers other days previous to that time, contrary to an ordinance of the Major of General Council of said city"

Your Petitioner further states that the case was not heard on the fifth day of July — but was continued until the 19th day of July 1862, and was then tried. That he was then fined Twenty Dollars and costs; which he prays your Honor to remit

Your Petitioner truly believes that this suit was brought by G. Conley ( — the person alleged to have been biten by said dog) with

malicious intent, — urged on by others, — who politically dislike your petitioner.

Your Petitioner James Rudd further states that he proved in the trial in this case by Mr Harris and also by Mr Dicks, both competent, intelligent and unimpeachable witnesses that some weeks previous to the said alleged biting and running at large of said dog, that they had been employed by said Rudd in reparing and making an enclosure in the back part of said Rudd's lot to prevent the escape of said dog from his premises during the dog-law restriction, and thereby doing all in his power to comply with said dog-law That both said Dicks & Harris had been previously employed at different times, in repairing, and hanging a strong high gate, and building a high partition fence in the back yard of said Rudd's premises to prevent any egress from his said premises. He also proved that whenever said dog did escape from said enclosure that so soon as discovered he was immediately driven back in said enclosure. Your Petitoner had present several other witnesses to prove these facts and also that so soon as he heard that the dog had escaped from his enclosure and bit said G. Conley ( — as alleged — ), he immediately sent

said dog to the country to prevent any other damage or accident. But his Honor Judge Johnson said those facts would be admitted by the court, — so said Rudd did not introduce said witnesses. His Honor Judge Johnson further said, that the ordinance had already been violated by said dog's escape from the premises ( — altho' unknown to the proprietor — ), and that not withstanding said James Rudd had made use of all reasonable and prudent precautions necessary to prevent damage and escape; — Yet it was proved that he did escape and did bite said G Conley, as sworn to by him. That therefore he was compelled to decide against Deft and impose the fine of Twenty-Dollars as prescribed by the dog-law.

Your Honor will perceive from the above that your f Petitioner had previously used all reasonable dill diligence to prevent his dog from running at large and from injuring any person. And also that so soon as he found that he did break his enclosure and did bite bite G. Conley as alleged ( — No one having seen him bite said Conley — ) Said Rudd immediately on the same day (as the offence was alleged to have been committed) sent said dog to the country — outside of the city limits and intends to keep him in the country.

Therefore your Petitioner James Rudd prays that Your Honor will remit said fine imposed by the city court of Louisville, and he will ever pray &c

James Rudd

Louisville City Ct

Remitted
B. M

$20 } Mis —
Ja^s Rudd

Iss^dJuly 28^th 1862