The Case of The Giddy Goat

All rise. This court is now in session. Judge Billy presiding. The first case on the roll will be presented without further delay.

Thank you. Case 2014/10/001/01, The facts of the case, your honour, are: One – the accused, M. Jackson, Two – The plaintiff, a pear tree, and Three  --  The Charge, acting the giddy goat.

Judge: Noted. Please proceed

Your honour, we have previously met ‘Michael Jackson’ a.k.a. ‘Jacko’ , our (foster) pet mountain goat who resides on Goat Hill, overlooking the grave of his erstwhile companion ‘Beebs’ on the flats at the very bottom of the hill. He is, your honour, a very dear and loving creature with huge penetrating eyes, a row of cute white little teeth, and two fierce-looking but quite harmless back-turned horns.

It is rumoured that he previously loved to intimidate and head-butt his fellow resident, one ‘Beebs’ a brown Nubian,  and that he indeed tried to charge, head-butt and intimidate a small (human) girl as well, but…

Judge: Please dwell on the evidence for this case. Do not introduce circumstantial or anecdotal material, if you please…

I shall proceed, if it pleases the Court. On the fourteenth day of this Month at or about six pm in the evening, the accused was observed approaching a pear tree which is situated on the property of his residence known as Goat Hill, which is used solely and exclusively for his activities, and no-one else. The pear tree is the property of the Andrews family, plaintiff and owners of the land which includes the Goat Hill Estate.

Further, it was observed by the plaintiff that the accused stood up on his hind legs on a number of occasions in attempts to nibble at the pear flower blossoms and new spring buds. It was observed that the accused managed to gain control over a number of such blossoms and buds on selected branches.

It is alleged by the plaintiff that the wanton removal of blossoms and buds and wilful destruction of these branches infringes on the rights of the owners of the tree, to wit the Andrews family, who believed it to be within their legal rights to approach the accused, as they hereby do, to advise him that the tree is private property not to be tampered with by any third party, as this would seriously jeopardise the production of fruit.

On the fourteenth day of this month at or about six pm in the evening, the plaintiff approached the accused who was standing on his hind legs peering over the boundary fence towards the home of the plaintiff. They reprimanded the accused with fair verbal reproach and smacked him gently in a friendly fashion alongside the earhole, whilst advising him in a civilised manner, by saying in the English language, “Jacko, boy, you can eat all the grass you want, we bring you hay as supplement, so please do not eat the pear tree. The Missus will send you back home if you don’t stop, do you hear?”

What transpired subsequent to this verbal admonishment is unbelievable, I know your honour, but I can call two eye witnesses of good standing and repute to confirm that the event took place as described and that reaction of the accused is something they would not believe, had they not witnessed it.

Judge: Well, don’t beat about the bush then, let us hear what is this unbelievable reaction.

If it pleases the Court, I shall continue and elaborate as requested by your worship. The goat dropped down onto all fours, as befits any regular goat, or indeed any farmyard animal. He then stomped off at high speed, in a dizzy and death-defying merry-go-round-like spinning motion of temper, frustration and what appeared to be defiance and rebellion, hopping and bucking as one might see at an American rodeo, if I make myself clear?

Judge: Perfectly. Do continue.

If it pleases the Court, the Goat then charged the fence where the two members for the plaintiff were standing, and made mock attempts at head-butting them with his back-turned horns, as is typical of dominant male goats. One of the plaintiffs is on record as having remarked at this stage, “Would you believe that? Exactly like a defiant (human) teenager rebelling after being told off for some or other misdemeanour.” He acted like a real giddy goat!

As further corroborating evidence, I submit this branch from the pear tree in question. It is marked “Exhibit “A” for the record. It clearly shows the total lack of blossoms or buds, when compared to an uneaten one marked “Exhibit B.”

If it pleases the Court, that concludes the case for the prosecution, my Lord.

Judge: Thank you, (turning), “Does the g\oat have anything to say?

Defence Attorney: Yes M’lud, but my client prefers to remain stum, on the grounds that he may incriminate himself…