1915-03-06yd

“Though the Ninth Division Court sat only a week ago, there was another long list for hearing yesterday, Judge Monck presiding.”

Hamilton Times.    March 6, 1915.

March 5, 1915 was an exceptionally busy day at the Wentworth County Court House in downtown Hamilton.

So busy was it that a change had to be made inside the building:

“(The court session) was held in the County Council  Chambers, the big court room being in use by the County Court. The seating capacity was taxed to its limit and it was necessary to place some of the witnesses in His Honor’s chambers until called.”¹

¹ “Unique Case in the Division Court Yesterday”

Hamilton Times. March 6, 1915.

Although Judge Monck was in charge of court proceedings that day, another judge, Judge Snider was also present to give assistance.

The addition of another judge was not enough for every case on the docket to be dealt with:

“This occasioned considerable comment, and now the lawyers are not only hoping for more room, but also for another judge. They say there was too much work for the two judges”¹

Of all the cases heard that day, there was one that was of particular interest:

“Walter Waterbury sued the estate of  the late William Hossack for $45.60, money due, it was alleged for the death of a cow from tuberculosis”¹

Waterbury had bought the cow thirteen months previously at an auction sale. After killing the animal and selling the carcass to a butcher, it was discovered that the cow had tuberculosis. Waterbury refunded the purchase price to the butcher, but then placed a suit against the individual from whom he originally had bought the cow.

Mr. W. H. McClemont, appearing for the defendant, argued that it was impossible to tell when a cow had tuberculosis until it was cut up by a butcher. It was also possible, the lawyer argued, that the cow did not have the disease when sold but had contracted it while in the plaintiff’s possession.

Judge Monck had never had such a case before him so he reserved judgement, partially in the hope that the participants in the matter could settle their differences out of court.