There are many stories about the wonders of the North American Femida. A cat in the microwave, for example. How sperm donors receive food
(There was no such thing.) Or about compensation of a million dollars for too hot coffee (and this is true, bigmakers in the pursuit of speed of service spoiled all the norms, aunt cooked the most important and remained disabled). Here is another story from the same series.

To the details in advance, please do not struggle, the original material was in English, and I read in English without a dictionary. That is, if I don’t understand something, I don’t go into the dictionary, but I include fantasy. And if I only understood the pretext, then I miss this proposition as non-essential and move on to the next.

The story begins in a sleepy Canadian town from those where nothing has happened for years. Two speed excesses, a bicycle theft and a drunk fight - the police already believe that a troublesome week has been issued. And here such an outraged police officer found on the side of the road a speck of blood and a bunch of white feathers, that is, clear signs of violation of the recently adopted law on the protection of small birds, the Small Birds Act.

A quick inspection of the scene of the incident brought evidence: a footprint of a horse copt, a footprint of shoes of thirty-eighth size and a revolver gear. This allowed to narrow the circle of suspects to the limit: the only owner in the town of the half-deathed pony, "Smith-Wesson" and thirty-eighth foot was a proud descendant of the true masters of the places, heavily drunk Indian Fred Odzhibuay. An employee of the nearest gas station confirmed that Fred had jumped in the indicated direction since morning.

The Indian was found on the floor of his cottage in his usual condition, completely excluding any testimony.
However, the bloody spot on the shoe and the feathers attached to the heel completely denounced him. The trial took place a week later. Usually cases of this scale are considered by the judge alone, but here, apparently also from boredom, a full-fledged trial was arranged with the prosecutor and a lawyer appointed by the state. Fred at the time shuddered, though not to the end, but enough to tell the lawyer how it was.

The prosecutor demanded the highest measure: $200 fine or 3 months in prison in case of failure to pay. Then the lawyer asked for the words.

“Your honor,” he said, “the circumstances of the case are such. On January 2, 1965, my defendant was riding on road 406 in the direction of the city.
of Santa Caterina. In the place indicated in the police report, the pony was unfortunate to break his leg. Mr. Odibui, guided by the considerations of humanism and the customs of his tribe, shot the animal to avoid unnecessary torture and buried it near the road. The defense has an exhumation protocol and an expert's conclusion that the blood traces found by the police belong to the buried animal.

As for the origin of the feathers, the fact is that my defendant, being in tight financial circumstances, sold the saddle and since then, while riding, was forced to cover his back with a pony feathering pillow. The store owner confirmed that the feathers found at the scene are identical to those used to fill the pillows.

Thus, I ask that the case be terminated for the absence of crime, since my defendant shot not a bird, but a pony.
Since Mr. Prosecutor is not able to distinguish a horse from a bird on his own, I can offer a few reliable criteria. In particular, birds do not roar, but sing, they do not wear podkov and can not carry cargo.
According to all these signs, it is obvious that the deceased pony did not belong to the class of birds, but was a mammal of a group of non-spiders. If the respectable prosecutor was not convinced by my arguments, I only have to offer him to go back to the junior group of kindergarten where such things take place.”

The last passage was not to be said. The prosecutor felt offended and gave a response:

“Your honor, I am not challenging the factual side of the matter. Undoubtedly, from a home point of view, the pony is not a bird. But we are interested in whether it is it from the point of view of the law, and this is a completely different matter. I will immediately revoke the criteria carried out by my opponent concerning rugging, subcoating and cargo transportation. Within the framework of this court case, we are not interested in the voice of the subject, his clothes, or the kind of occupation. We are only interested in its status from the point of view of the law on the protection of small birds.

According to Appendix No. 1, by bird within the scope of this law is understood any animal that has two legs and is covered with feathers.
Let us consider the first criterion first. Did the dead pony have two legs? He had more than two of them. I am convinced that the number mentioned in the law is a minimum requirement, not a limit. For example, if the law provides tax benefits for those with two children, then these benefits should be granted to those with four children. This is a completely similar case.

Let us now consider the second requirement. Was the pony covered with feathers? My opponent himself has confirmed this. The pony was covered with a pillow, the pillow had feathers, therefore, according to the law of transitivity, we have the right to claim that the feathers covered the pony. Of course, they did not grow on it, but the law says nothing and that the feathers must belong to the animal by birth.

We do not know for sure if the pillow was on the back of the pony at the time of the murder. But it does not matter. After all, if you pull out all the feathers, for example, the foam, it won’t stop being a bird, isn’t it? To recognize an animal as being protected by the law on the protection of small birds, it is sufficient that the feathers are on his back at least at some point in his life.

The judge did not find anything to object to such a justified statement. The Poor
Fred was sentenced to three months in prison, which, however, was not something special for him. And the prosecutor’s speech is now quoted in American legal textbooks.