In 2003, police in Warwickshire, England, opened a garden shed and found a whimpering, cowering dog. It had been locked in the shed and abandoned. It was dirty and malnourished and clearly had been abused.

In an act of kindness, the police took the dog, which was a greyhound female, to the nearby Nuneaton and Warwickshire Wildlife Sanctuary, run by a man named Geoff Grewcock and known as a willing haven for animals abandoned, orphaned, or otherwise in need.

Geoff Grewcock and the other sanctuary staff went to work with two aims: to restore the dog to full health and to win her trust. It took several weeks, but eventually both goals were achieved.

They named her Jasmine, and they started to think about finding her an adoptive home. The dog had other ideas. No one remembers now how it began, but Jasmine started welcoming all animal arrivals at the sanctuary. It wouldn’t matter if it was a puppy, a fox cub, a rabbit or a rhinoceros, Jasmine would peer into the box or cage and, where possible, deliver a welcoming lick.

Geoff Grewcock relates one of the early incidents. “We had two puppies that had been abandoned by a nearby railway line. One was a Lakeland Terrier cross and another was a Jack Russell Doberman cross. They were tiny when they arrived at the centre and Jasmine approached them and grabbed one by the scruff of the neck in her mouth and put him on the settee. Then she fetched the other one and sat down with them, cuddling them.”

“But she is like that with all of our animals, even the rabbits. She takes all the stress out of them and it helps them to not only feel close to her but to settle into their new surroundings.

“She has done the same with the fox and badger cubs, she licks the rabbits and guinea pigs and even lets the birds perch on the bridge of her nose.”

Jasmine, the timid, abused, deserted waif, became the animal sanctuary’s resident surrogate mother, a role for which she might have been born. The list of orphaned and abandoned youngsters she has cared for comprises five fox cubs, four badger cubs, 15 chicks, eight guinea pigs, two stray puppies and 15 rabbits.

And one roe deer fawn. Tiny Bramble, 11 weeks old, was found semi-conscious in a field. Upon arrival at the sanctuary, Jasmine cuddled up to her to keep her warm, and then went into the full foster mum role. Jasmine the greyhound showers Bramble the roe deer with affection and makes sure nothing is matted in her fur.

“They are inseparable,” says Geoff Grewcock. “Bramble walks between her legs and they keep kissing each other. They walk together round the sanctuary. It’s a real treat to see them.”

Jasmine will continue to care for Bramble until she is old enough to be returned to woodland life. When that happens, Jasmine will not be lonely. She will be too busy showering love and affection on the next orphan or victim of abuse.

From left, Toby, a stray Lakeland dog; Bramble, an orphaned Roe deer; Buster, a stray Jack Russell; a dumped rabbit; Sky, an injured barn owl; and Jasmine, doing what she does best.

Our Saddy Animals cover-pup may be a Border collie or perhaps a Bernese Mountain Dog, but in any case, he or she is advertising a contest that I propose NMC’s English setter Hank should enter.

You see, the ancient and venerable British dog show Crufts is going on right now. But due to a dispute between the BBC and the Kennel Club, this year’s Crufts ain’t on the telly. But never fear, The Guardian has stepped into the breach:

So today, in an attempt to satisfy your dog show yearnings, The Guardian launches Grufts, the search for the World’s Leading Liberal Dog. There’ll be no kerfuffle over in-breeding, no snooty concerns over pedigree, for this will be the people’s dog, and all hounds are welcome.

Like any good dog show, we’ve divided the contest into six categories – click on the link for an example of what we’re looking for:

(1) Most Stylish
(2) Most Talented
(3) Most Loveable
(4) Most Heroic
(5) Best Lookalike (your hound can bear an uncanny resemblance to yourself, a famous dog or, indeed, a celebrity)
(6) Best-travelled (your picture, Photoshopped or otherwise, should show your dog in an exotic location)

Naturally, bonus points will be awarded for any hound pictured reading (we use the term loosely) the Guardian, browsing guardian.co.uk, or engaging in any Guardian-approved activities (taking out the recycling, perhaps).

We’ve set up a Flickr group where you can post your entries. And should you wish to film your dog, you can post video links below this very article. On Monday morning we shall announce the shortlist of dogs vying for the Grufts title on guardian.co.uk. We will then open it up to a public vote, and the Best in Show will be announced in the afternoon. Good luck pups, one and all!

Though I bet Hank could make things very ruff on all those Blighty-bred pooches, I don’t see why other foloers shouldn’t make a play for it too. Somebody’s Mississippi accent and fine manners might just bowl those judges over.

So . . . based on his Krewe of Barkus party-hardiness, my guess is that Gordon here (also h/t sailor) is no Presbyterian.

aerohde in the Times-Picayune

May he and youse have a rawkin’-good weekend!

How ’bout these courters-and-sparkers, Tate and Shama?

Mehgan Murphy – Smithsonian Institution

Know what they are? Got a guess?

Honey, them’s red pandas (even if they do look more like mutt-pups than bears). They’ve just met at the National Zoo and fallen deeply in l-u-v.

Next, here’s Henry the Tuatara:

AP

He’s 111 years old and just now, at longest last, a daddy. (No truth to the rumor that Pfizer’s trying to sign him for a Viagra commercial.)

Finally, what OWIL and I know and love as the Daffiest Species in the World.

Happy Valentine’s Day, however many feet you do or don’t got.

P.S. Oh — to our GOPer dears, as lagniappe just for today, Juanita Jean lends her glitter:

Heeheeheehee . . . . . ………

UPDATE: Even a day late, you don’t want to miss this WiredScience post that ducky found — I mean, where else can we catch flatworms’ penis-jousts, hah?

TIM ISBELL / THE SUN HERALD

were indicted by a federal grand jury on 16 counts of fraud (11-page pdf). The indictment alleges that the Warrs sought and received a grant for replacing a residence in which they weren’t living pre-Katrina.

Passed-along courthouse gossip has it that Warr refused a plea deal including fines and probation but no prison if he would resign.

The Old Main at Mississippi State in its day was the largest college dormitory in the United States, and is a large part of the memory of male students who went to school there before 1959– it’s estimated that through its history, about 40,000 stayed there, including John Stennis and Congressman Sonny Montgomery.  The dorm was started in 1880 as the first dorm residence there and added onto through 1922.  It established one side of the parade ground at the center of Mississippi State.

On January 22, 1959, it burned to the ground (with the loss of one life).  Over a thousand students resided there at the time of the fire.   Sid Salter remembers the Old Main and fire here. There is going to be a memorial program about the event Thursday night at 7:00 in Starkville, with video of the fire and descriptions of the event by eyewitnesses.

The fire itself was started by a student, who was thought to  have set a curtain on fire from candles, and there are apparently some mysteries remaining to this day about the fire.

Update

There’s information about the commemoration at Mississippi State here.

Here’s the order.

I’ve already written about one split decision, arguing that Justices Dickinson and Kitchens got it right in their dissents (where they were joined by Justice Graves) in the Solomon Osborne case.  Here’s a story in the Greenwood Commonwealth about the Osborne case, which also notes:

The state Supreme Court is still considering another recommendation, based on an unrelated case, that Osborne be banned for life from the bench. That case involves a then 17-year-old Greenwood female whom Osborne ordered detained n a move the commission claims was the result of “improper, illegal and inappropriate” acts.

There are three more cases with slit opinions.  I’m not counting a zoning decision written by Justice Randolph to which Justice Graves dissented without written opinion– without an opinion from him one can’t tell anything about why Justice Graves dissented.

Details about all this below the fold.

The first thing to note is that Justice Dickinson is in dissent in all four divided opinions, writing in three out of four cases, and joining Justice Graves in the other. Justice Kitchens also wrote in dissent in the Osborne case, and agreed with Justice Dickinson in three out of four of these cases.  Justice Chandler, who did not write in any of these three cases, also agreed with Justice Dickinson three out of four times.  Justice Graves wrote one of the majority opinions in the divided cases, concurred in the result on another, and joined the dissents in the remaining two.  Justice Waller wrote two majority opinions, and Justice Carlson the fourth.  The second thing is that it seems to me that these four dissents and the majority opinions, both, represent a calmer rhetoric than we were seeing from this court last year.

In addition to these five split opinions there were four unanimous opinions: two annexation cases (one written by Randolph and one by Dickinson), a state employment decision (written by Dickinson) and a real estate contract statute of limitations decision (written by Lamar).  I only looked relatively closely at the last, which reverses the trial court for dating a concealment claim from the time of a real estate contract, not from the time the buyer could have discovered the claim.  That one’s hard to argue against.

So here’s the opinions with dissents other than Osborne:

• In Wilson v. Nance, the trial court had dismissed a personal injury case as a sanction for failure to follow a court order.  As a jury was being selected, the plaintiff’s lawyer had stood up and said he doubted his client’s competence. The trial judge decided to continue the case, assess the costs of the abortive trial to the plaintiff and give plaintiff’s counsel 90 days to have a guardian appointed on the competence issue. In a couple of weeks, the plaintiff’s lawyer applied for a conservator, not a guardian.  The court with the conservatorship proceeding didn’t hear the  appointment for 107 days.  Thus, no guardian was appointed by the deadline.  The trial judge on the personal injury case therefore dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning any chance the plaintiff had of recovering was over.  Reading between the lines, I have the sense that there must be more to this dismissal than appears clear in the opinion– the trial judge’s patience was probably pushed more than the opinion describes. Under the facts as stated by both majority and dissent, the complete dismissal seemed too harsh a sanction to me, but not to a majority of the court. In any event, Graves writes for the majority, affirming the dismissal, joined by Waller, Carlson, Randolph, and Pierce.  Dickinson dissents, joined by Kitchens and Chandler and in part by Lamar (she does not explain which part), contending that the dismissal was too harsh.  There was a Patsy Brumfield story about this opinion, although it doesn’t add a lot to the opinion itself.
• In City of Jackson v. Spann, Waller wrote the majority, joined by Carlson, Randolph, Lamar, and Chandler.  Graves dissents joined by Dickinson, Kitchens, and Pierce.  This is a personal injury suit against the City of Jackson.  There had been a non-jury award to the injured plaintiff by circuit judge of $285,595.  The Supreme Court radically reduced this damage award, holding that there was not sufficient evidence of the need for future surgery or of future disability and reduced the judgment to less than $100K. The trial judge being reversed was Judge Winston Kidd.  One interesting aspect is that the trial judge had adopted one side’s proposed findings of fact, and therefore the court applied heightened scrutiny, which, in this case seems to have made the difference.  The Supreme Court noted that it would not overturn a damages award unless it was “so excessive as to strike mankind, at first blush, as being beyond all measure, unreasonable, and outrageous, and such as manifestly show the jury [in this case, judge] have been actuated by passion, partiality, prejudice, or corruption.”  What is being communicated about Judge Kidd here? Basically, the majority didn’t buy a doctor’s statement about future surgery needed (the doctor uses the word “guess” in estimating the surgery, which I think is where that came off the rails) and doesn’t buy the disability rating applied by the doctor.  The dissent is all about respecting fact decisions supported by the record.  From reading both opinions, the trial court decision appears to be supported by the record except for that word “guess.”
• In White v. Cooke, Waller wrote the majority, joined by Carlson, Randolph, Kitchens, and Pierce.  Graves concurs in result only.  Dickinson is in dissent, joined by Chandler.  The majority opinion in this case makes a complete mess of notions of mutual mistake in contract law, and I’ll have to say that I share  Justice Dickinson’s clearly expressed puzzlement at the majority’s view.  What happened:  White bid at auction on property being sold “as is.”  After the auction, the seller, Cooke, discovered that he was mistaken in his belief that a driveway to an adjoining tract did not intrude on the subject tract.  He thus refused to close without allowing an additional easement.  The chancellor viewed the “as is” language as giving Cooke an out, found that White’s refusal to close without allowing Cooke to give that additional easement to be in bad faith, and awarded Cooke attorneys fees for the suit.   While the attorneys fees ruling was reversed, the majority opinion accepts Cooke’s mistake argument.  Dickinson’s dissent makes clear there was nothing mutual about the mistake.   Justice Dickinson wrote:   “This case is not about a mutual mistake of fact. A seller who advertises and sells property in its ‘as is’ condition cannot back out of the deal because he later learns the property he contracted to sell has a road on it he thought was on another parcel he wants to sell to someone else. Stated another way: A person who wants to come back later and correct mistakes shouldn’t sell property ‘as is.’ Cooke carefully placed everyone on notice that – regardless of what was in the brochure – the parcels were being sold ‘as is.’ Then, after discovering that the ‘as is’ was not as he thought it was (or wanted it to be), he claims mutual mistake of fact. I am quite surprised that the majority is persuaded by this specious argument.”

I’ll note that, laying aside Osborne, the two affirmances are of a trial judge finding for the defendant (I count White as largely affirmed), and the reversal takes down a substantial damages award for the plaintiffs.   No criminal cases have been decided yet.  I’ll also note that I think Justice Dickinson’s well-thought out dissents will in the medium run (perhaps even short run) prod the court toward doing a better job– these opinions take the court to task in a reasoned, reasonable way for things that Dickinson feels the court got wrong.  Particularly in Wilson, White and Osborne, I think he has the better of the argument.   Spann is closer (because the doctor on the surgery number said he was guessing) but even there, at least on the future disability, I think the dissent has the better argument.

For langiappe, I’ll throw out two orders-without-opinions that make me wonder: What’s up with that?  In the first, without an opinion, the court reiterated that a lawyer named Laura Kuns is still in contempt for not paying Watkins, Ludlham costs or fees for whatever-it-is-Ms. Kuns-did-that-was-contempt.   Here’s the original contempt order, which sheds little light.  Is there an interesting story here? Anyone?  I’m curious.

Additionally, the court overturned a prior decision (written by Easley, with no dissent) that had affirmed a chancellor’s ruling construing a deed.  In granting the hearing, there’s no opinion, just an order withdrawing the prior opinion and granting rehearing.  Here’s the original opinion that’s now not even on Westlaw.  So the chancellor is wrong, but in what way? He’s on his own to figure that out.

Update: typo fixed (deepens not depends…)