I am alarmed at the judges interpretation of the cow’s evidence inthis landmark case. For the purposes of the next two paragraphs, please try to imagine you are a cow.
You have been kidnapped by either Mr. Sloman or Mr. Goodman. You have been summoned to give evidence in a field doubling as a courtroom. The clerk of the court leads you into the proceedings and a herdsman for each party calls out to you. You are then faced with a dilemma.
Do you meander over to your herdsman to indicate familiarity with him (I know him. He looks after me) or do you approach the abductor’s herdsman in an accusatory manner and lift your legs onto his shoulders (Your Honour, he’s as guilty as hell).
Now admittedly my legal experience is not what it could be, being limited to repeats of L.A. Law and the ‘Who Stole The Tarts’ chapter from Alice In Wonderland (I thought the judgement in The Crown v The Knave of Hearts was particularly harsh, with the sentence coming before the verdict, although thinking about it again that case was probably the legal justification for the shenanigans at Guantanamo Bay).
Anyway, I consider that the judge in Sloman v Goodman should have dismissed the cow’s evidence as unreliable, especially since it wasn’t placed under oath, and he should have used the Judgement of Solomon as a precedent instead.
All he needed to do was order the slaying of the cow, and observe who was willing to concede ownership in order to save its life and who wanted it killed for beef sandwiches.
I think Judge Scobell has set a dangerous precedent in this case. From 1940 onwards a cow’s evidence in a court of law has been and will be construed in only one way.
Any thoughts which exclude references to cow-orkers?