Chapter 11

4 The court's synopsis of the fact sin this particular case certainly bears repeating. "On September 14, 1907, the plaintiff was the owner of a thoroughbred Holstein-Friesian heifer, which was born on January 9, 1906, and had been thereafter duly christened 'Martha Pietertje Pauline.' The name is neither euphonious nor musical, but there is not much in a name anyway. Notwithstanding any handicap she may have had in the way of a cognomen, Martha Pietertje Pauline was a genuine 'highbrow,' having a pedigree as long and at least as well authenticated as that of the ordinary scion of effete European nobility who breaks into this land of democracy and equality, and offers his title to the highest bid- der at the matrimonial bargaining counter. The defendant was the owner of a bull about one year old, lowly born and nameless as far as the record discloses. This plebeian, having aspirations beyond his humble station in life, wandered beyond the confines of his own pastures, and sought the society of the adolescent and unsophisticated Martha, con- trary to the provisions of Sec. 1482, . . . As a result of this somewhat morganatic mesalliance, a calf was born July 5, 1908." What would a court consider in deciding whether Defendant should be held strictly liable for Plaintiff 's damages? Kopplin v. Quade, 130 N.W. 511 (Wis. 1911).