Sherlock Holmes as Cross-Examiner
Sherlock Holmes as Cross-Examiner is an article published in the Weekly Dispatch on 27 april 1913.
Sherlock Holmes as Cross-Examiner
Sir A. Conan Doyle and His Beautiful Collie.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, displayed his skill as a cross-examiner during the hearing of a case at Mark Cross Police Court, Tunbridge Wells, where he was called upon to answer summonses alleging that a collie dog he keeps at his house at Crowborough had killed and worried sheep. Mr. Arthur Hale, a farmer, the prosecutor, said he had seen the dog at Sir Arthur's house, where he had an interview with Sir Arthur on the matter. Sir Arthur (cross-examining): My suggestion to you was that in order to prove which dog it was you should fire at it, from a distance of about thirty to forty yards, into the tail part, so that we should see a mark if it proved to be my dog?
— Yes. My dog is between five and six years old. From your experience as a farmer, is it not strange for a collie to take to annoying sheep at this age?
— Yes, but when they do they stick to it. You are aware that my dog has a good many sons and daughters in the village?
— Yes. You are aware that within 200 or 300 yards of my house there is a fold of sheep at Mr. St. Quentin's?
— Yes. Does it not strike you as being strange that my dog should pass this fold of sheep and go to a farm another mile on to worry sheep?
— I don't know. John Hornby, a farm boy, said that he got close to the dog while it was running among the sheep, and he was sure from marks on its face that it was the defendant's dog.
Playfollow of Children.
Sir Arthur: How near did you get. my boy?
— About ten yards. It was running away as you approached?
— Yes. The point is that it is very difficult to see a patch on a dog's nose if it is running away from you. You have seen my dog since and know that it has a white spot on its nose?
— Yes. Have you seen the other collie dogs in the villager?
— No. Then it is impossible for you to say for certain that mine was the dog worrying the sheep.
Sir Arthur, addressing the Bench, said his dog was physically incapable of annoying sheep. It had some disease in the jaw which he was told was a common defect in collies, and it could not eat even a crust. They had to feed it on the softest of food. The dog had been among sheep in a meadow near his house and had never annoyed them. "The police — I think in a most unwarranted way"
(said Sir Arthur) — "suggested that I
should destroy the dog. That suggestion, I understand, came from the chief constable direct at a time when it was never proved that the dog had touched a sheep."
The dog was of the gentlest type. It was a valuable and beautiful collie, and the playfellow of his children. Mr. Hubert Victor Dale, a veterinary surgeon, said the dog was physically incapable of killing a sheep. The chairman (Mr. H. E. Sheppard) said that after that evidence the Bench would not proceed with the case. They were satisfied it was a case of mistaken identity on the part of the complainant, and the case would be dismissed.
