These chickens got killed by your dogs.
I immediately saw feathers all over my back yard.
And all of the chickens were missing.
You know that your dogs have done this.
Nothing was ever told to me, that these dogs just attacked these chickens.
They jumped out the window of your house!
[Narrator] Today, on Tribunal Justice...
This case was filed in Ypsilanti, Michigan.
[Byrd] Your Honor, this is case #1128 on the calendar
in the matter of Clarice vs. Linville.
Parties have been sworn in. You may be seated.
-[Adam] Thank you, Byrd. Miss Clarice, -[Byrd] Mm hm.
According to your complaint, two separate occasions,
the Defendant's dogs entered your property and killed several of your hens.
-Yes. -During one of the incidents,
you were injured and required medical care.
You're suing the Defendant for $6,500. And you broke that down as follows:
$3,200 for the cost to raise new chicks to replace the hens that his dogs killed.
Then, $1,105 for vet bills for the hens that survived.
$800 for your own medical bills. Five days of lost wages for $960.
And then, assorted other items involving future egg earnings.
And then, the four replacement hens for $60. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Now, Mr. Linville, you say that there's no concrete proof
that your dogs killed or injured any of her hens. Is that correct.
Correct, Your Honor.
That as for her injuries, they were self-inflicted.
That she acted negligently when she attempted to separate
the attacking dogs from her chickens. And that's when she ended up
scratching the cornea of her eye. And that your dogs are well trained,
-and friendly to humans and other animals. -Correct.
All right. So we're clear, what kind of dogs were they?
Uh, so Duke is a doodle. So, it's a mix between a golden retriever and a poodle.
And then, Stella is an American bully. Which is, basically,
they bred the temperament of aggression out of pit bulls
and made them family friendly, and that's the American bully.
I'm sorry, did you say that the aggressive tendencies were bred out of this dog?
Correct.
Well, I guess that's what we're gonna find out now.
Miss Clarice, let's talk about the first incident, 'cause there were two, correct?
-Yes. -[Adam] The date of the first incident.
What were you doing on August 22nd to support yourself?
That day, I was working for a bank,
that I was a call-center employee for remotely from home.
And according to your complaint, you also run this small hobby farm with ten hens,
and you sell the eggs to help offset some of the expenses
-as well as supplement your income. -Yes.
How long have you been raising hens and selling eggs?
I got my chickens in 2020. Kind of typical for a pandemic project.
That was what I did during the lockdown was build my chicken coop
and started with the chicken project at that point.
And Mr. Linville, are you employed?
I have a painting business.
-[Adam] Painting business? -Yep.
Who takes care of your dogs when you're not home?
Um, I work for myself, so I have a pretty flexible schedule.
Uh, so generally, I let them out in the morning.
Um, and I come home and let them out in the afternoon and then,
when I come back from work in the evening and they're out.
And where are they kept? Are they only kept inside
or you also keep them outside when you're not home?
When I'm not at home, they're inside.
-[Adam] Always? -Correct.
-Is your property fenced in? -Yes.
So, they could be outside when you're not home.
No. They're in a crate in the house while I'm gone.
-[Adam] You crate train them? -Correct.
Okay. Now, there were two separate incidents, sir,
when it's alleged that your dogs attacked and killed the Plaintiff's hens.
How did your dogs escape in August?
So, uh, actually both incidents, um, I let them out in the morning.
And then, I went upstairs to take a shower and get ready for work.
So, you left them outside unattended?
Correct. I let them out, I was upstairs. And I had just, um, put in a shed
in my back yard, but I didn't put it into the exact corner of the yard,
so they squeezed around. And I replaced the fence.
I spent $5,000 to put in a new fence when I bought the house.
Hold on, did you say that they squeezed through the fence?
Yeah. And then, her side of the fence is wood still. So then,
they broke one of the wood slats, I guess, and then, went through the fence.
So, the first incident was August. When was the next incident?
When was the second incident?
Uh, December 7th, I believe. Beginning of December.
In both incidences, they escaped my yard in the same way.
And do you recall giving a statement to the police,
who came to the scene on both incidents?
-Do I recall having... -[Adam] A conversation with police
who came after all these chickens got killed by your dogs.
Uh, the second time, yes.
And do you recall what it was that you told the police
the way in which your dogs escaped your property?
I do not recall.
Well, let me help refresh your recollection.
The first time, you told the police that your dogs dug a hole
under your six foot privacy fence, went right past your electric fence
to go onto the Plaintiff's property. Does that help refresh your recollection
-as to what you told them? -Yes, Your Honor.
So, was what you told me just a moment ago inaccurate?
'Cause they didn't squeeze through anything, they dug under your fence
and went right through an electric fence, right?
Correct, Your Honor. I tried to summarize the story by saying they squeezed
but everything I had told the police the first time that happened was true,
I just summarized it. I mean, they squeezed behind the shed,
-they had to dig... -[Adam] Great. And the second time,
you told the police that they jumped out the window of your house.
The second incident, they did jump out the window. They were out downstairs,
and then I had a window open. They jumped out of the window
and followed that route. I just skipped that step...
I get it. It seems to be an important skip.
Ma'am, why don't you tell us what happened on the August 22nd incident.
So, on the August 22nd incident, I heard a ton of barking
coming from my back yard. I realized something was going on,
so I came outside. I immediately saw feathers all over my back yard.
And it's fenced in?
Yes, it's all fenced in. But when I realized that they were missing,
and that there were feathers everywhere, I immediately was thinking
there's a predator, something is going on.
So, I started to go towards the back where I saw the gate had been broken in two,
and these two dogs came up to me, and I saw my chickens that were hiding...
We can take a look at the monitor, right there.
[Amy] Yes. That's my back yard. I started to look frantically
for the chickens and found the dogs running up to me
and then also trying to go back after the chickens who were still alive.
So, I had to separate them. But there was a lot of brush
along the fence line and that's how my eye was injured.
I was trying to catch the dogs and put 'em in my garage.
Were there any other dogs besides the Defendant's that were on your property
at the time when this happened, this happened and this happened?
-Um, no, no... -[Adam] And the only dogs
-that you did see were the Defendant's? -[Amy] Yes.
[Adam] No concrete proof.
Is that right, sir? No concrete proof that it was your dog
who did that? Is that still your story?
I just, I haven't seen my dogs in the back yard with the chickens.
-I haven't... -Oh, so, just because you haven't seen it.
-Right, I mean... -[Adam] I understand.
Okay, so, four hens and a rabbit were attacked and injured.
You brought all the animals to the vet, and you provided us with bills for that.
Two of the four hens died. The other two, you nursed back.
You suffered a scratched cornea, requiring medical care.
Tell me about December 7th. You were at work?
-Yes. Yes. -[Adam] And you received a phone call.
So, there's a brewery right behind my house,
the head of security said that they had seen two dogs in their alleyway.
That they want to let me know in case my chickens were free-ranging.
So, like, I came home right away from work.
So, you come home and you found two dogs in your back yard,
two hens were dead.
I literally pulled the dog off the dead chicken and she attempted to bite me.
-The pit bull... Yeah. -[Adam] The pit bull?
The labradoodle was also right next to the chickens.
Sir, still no concrete proof in your mind?
I would just like to be able to see with my own eyes.
-That's what I mean by concrete proof. -[Adam] I got it.
So, you attempted to separate the dogs and what happened?
So, she immediately went to snap at me. I had a pretty thick jacket on.
So, I have dog handling experience. I worked for...
It sounds like it. I wouldn't have gone near that dog. Are you kidding me?
Well, I worked for the Oklahoma Humane Society for eight years.
And I had dog behavior experience, so, I was able to catch them safely that time
and put them into my garage. I wasn't injured, but I did call 911
because of the aggression that was displayed
trying to defend the dead chicken's body.
[Adam] So, you call the police.
And this was the police on December 7th, is that right?
Yes. They're being taken from my garage out my back gate by the officer.
[Adam] Had you ever seen that police report before?
No, Your Honor.
So, it's fair to say that when you provided us with your answer,
in which you said that there was no concrete proof,
you hadn't seen the report from the police in which they memorialized
what you said at the time and what the Plaintiff said at the time, right?
Great. So, let's go through it real quickly. August 22nd:
You told them that your dogs dug a hole and escaped from the privacy fence
and the electric fence. You stated that you were adding
another chain link fence to ensure the dogs don't get out again.
Did you ever do that?
No yet, Your Honor.
Not yet. And that was August 22nd. December 7th,
police responded back to your home. The dogs attacked and killed
two of the chickens. And when Amy got home,
they went to her back yard and found your two dogs running around once again.
They tried to bite the Plaintiff. You actually showed up on December 7th
and you said, "They jumped out the window."
-Right? -Yes, Your Honor.
Judge Acker?
Miss Clarice, who is your witness?
This is my neighbor, Mark.
Sir, have you had an experience with the Defendant's dogs as well?
Yes. On September 12th of this year. I was at home working
and I heard a lot of barking, and it continued.
So, I went out in my yard, and they're in my back yard, next to our henhouse
was my neighbor Paul, who was keeping two large dogs
away from my henhouse. Then the dogs... I saw one of the dogs
jump over a five or six feet high chain link fence,
and then jump over the neighbor's fence. Both of them.
I was scared to death of these dogs. But I loved those hens.
And those hens, they lived. The dog was never...
How do you know that these were the Defendant's dogs?
I did not know that then.
But the police officer who came to our house
she told me that these dogs belonged to someone two blocks from my house.
And she named the Defendant in her report.
Sir, you can take your seat. Thank you.
Mr. Linville, were you ever aware of an attack?
No, I was... This is my first time ever hearing about the situation or anything...
[Tanya] Never contacted by law enforcement with respect to the situation?
No. And that's the weird thing too about the first incident as well.
Um, the dogs were returned by the police to the Humane Society.
I went and picked them up. Nothing was ever told to me.
That the dogs just attacked these chickens.
The dogs didn't have blood on them, didn't have feathers...
[Tanya] I mean, at that point, maybe they'd been cleaned up.
But what baffles me, sir, is that, I think the golden doodle
had one obedience training course, and the American bully,
which according to you, has had all of its aggressive tendencies bred out of it,
-had none. -Correct.
So, the notion that you are continuing to try to characterize your dogs in ways
that contradict the behaviors of which you're aware,
suggest to me, just on a legal basis, a sort of gross negligence.
Because you know they're getting out. And then, when Judge Levy said to you
"you still don't have any evidence?" And you're like, "well, I didn't see it
with my own eyes." That's not how proof works on a legal basis.
I mean, there are two types of evidence. There's direct evidence,
where you can see things with your own eyes.
And circumstantial evidence is evidence, for example,
dogs jump through windows, dig tunnels, get off of the property.
That's fact number one. Fact number two, dogs found
with chicken blood and feathers in their mouths.
So, circumstantially, I can infer that those dogs are responsible.
That's circumstantial evidence. So, the fact that you're coming to court
and saying I don't owe her anything 'cause I didn't see it...
If you proceed with that position,
you're gonna end up in a lot of litigation.
[Narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
The Animal Control officer was actually told by Alex
that he was gonna be rehoming Duke. He does still have Duke.
But he's also since gotten another pit bull.
Now you have a second dog?
[Narrator] Amy Clarice is suing her neighbor, Alex Linville,
for vet bills and medical costs after his dogs attacked her hens.
Alex does not believe it was his dogs who caused the injuries.
When I read in your answer that the attack took place, according to you,
in a public field next to her property. That was much more interesting to me
as a legal defense than "I didn't see it with my own eyes."
But if you have some evidence that the reason that this happened
was because her hens were not enclosed, that's where you should go.
Yeah, so, after the first incident, the next day, Amy was in contact with me.
On the phone, she had told me that, you know, the dogs jumped her fence,
and that it was just chaotic, chickens running everywhere and stuff.
And that I could go see the evidence for myself,
that it's in the field next to her house. Those were her words.
I've seen chickens on that field before.
This is a public field right next to Amy's house.
Miss Clarice, is there a public field adjacent to your property?
It's not public. It's owned by the brewery,
the same people who texted me the second time.
The reason there are some feathers there is because the dogs broke the gate.
My hens have never been in that field. But there were a few of them
that did get to that point, I think,
when I was out trying to catch everybody...
How do you know that your hens never get out?
Because I've never had any issues. The brewery has never once contacted me
about having any hens over there. They've never been over there.
Maybe, in the same way that he can't say that his dogs are perfectly behaved...
I mean, I know people who have hens and raise chickens.
If they are not properly enclosed, they may wander.
So, don't say more than you can actually prove.
I think that you have a video that you wanted to show us
that details your perspective on this allegedly open field, or public field.
By the way, you say it's a public field. She says, it's not public.
To me it's immaterial. Let's see the video.
So, this just shows the feathers in that field.
It's at nighttime. The video's not ideal, I know,
but that was all I could find back there. And then, this is just to show the area.
You can see that house that I zoom in on
with two windows and two sidelights in the door.
I just have a screen shot on the street just proving that that is
the actual location across the street from her house.
I mean, fair enough. But I can come up with my own theories, too.
Who's to say that the dogs didn't maul the chickens on her property
and then take the mauled chicken next door?
Anyway, I think I have enough. Judge DiMango?
I have to tell you, if this were a criminal trial
and your dogs were sitting there,
there'd be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
You have everything that you need in a criminal trial.
You've got an identification. She catches them on the property.
The smoking gun, feathers in the mouth. I mean, it's almost comical.
They show that on cartoons and all...
Have you seen the feathers in the mouth? I haven't seen that.
You see, I think where you're having the issue here is that if you didn't see it,
it couldn't have happened. You know, that's the problem you're having here.
You didn't see how the hens got out, and yet you want us to believe
they ran out because she was negligent keeping them enclosed?
You didn't see that. But you didn't see it.
We're telling you, you didn't see it. So, you can't have it both ways.
You can't say if I didn't see it, it didn't happen,
but if it helps me, then it doesn't matter if I didn't see it.
That's number one. Number two, I was a little troubled by your statement
in the papers to discredit a bond you wouldn't do,
but legally it hasn't been recognized. I think it'd been recognized.
It's called the "Dog Law of 1919," and it says that, "if your dog
is caught pursuing or killing livestock,
they can shoot them on sight," the police.
And you would be responsible for any and all damages.
And people feel very strongly about their livestock
and poultry that they're keeping. In fact, you've named all of your hens.
You have Pancake, right?
Pancake, Maple Syrup. We have Copper, Ash...
They're all named after breakfast foods.
[Amy laughs] 'Cause the kids, yeah. We have a lot of kids that come over.
And I saw that you said you sell the eggs for $5. Yesterday, on the news,
eggs are way up. You've gotta raise the prices on those eggs.
[Amy] Oh, it's about food sustainability, yeah.
We may let you amend your request for damages as to your lost income.
And you are responsible for your pets. You get that, right?
Mm hmm. I think it's also important to mention, too,
uh, in my evidence. In the city, you have to have a permit to keep hens.
That permit allows you to keep four hens.
My city council people who I talk to all the time have never mentioned this to me.
But if she has these animals that aren't even legally allowed to be there.
How can anything come from that?
So, let me ask you a question. There's a violation, perhaps,
for having more than four. Maybe there's a fine.
But death, to bring the number down to four? I don't buy it.
I have a voice message from the Animal Control officer
who has been working the case.
What does that tell us, that voice message?
She called me three days ago to warn me that she'd been chasing a dog
that headed straight towards Alex's house, and then it turned around
and started to head back towards my house.
If I was able to, I needed to come home and check my chickens.
[Patricia] Was there any proof that the dog seen by the Animal Control
was Duke? Because Duke, he still has.
So, the Animal Control officer was actually told by Alex
-that he was gonna be rehoming Duke. -Yes! I have the papers right here
and I was gonna get to that.
Three days ago was the first day that he finally answered her call again
and told her that he does still have Duke.
But he's also since gotten another pit bull that...
I [indistinct] the dog licenses for his address,
and he got a pit bull on December 12th, a week after the attack at my house.
So, that dog matches the description of the one she was chasing.
But Alex did deny that the dog is his.
Okay, so, let me start by saying... 'Cause you had a lot to say there.
You were given two options when Animal Control came
and it was determined that your dogs were indeed the aggressors here.
They said one, you could rehome them, or they'd be euthanized.
You gave Stella back to the Human Society, but as to Duke,
you did not give Duke back. You said to the Animal Control officer,
and he has written it in his documents, that you would rehome him in three days.
He checked with you after that, and you still have Duke today.
And now you have a second dog?
No, the second dog, I don't know... So, I know what she's talking about,
where she says she [indistinct] and saw the December 12th date...
That's why I had to go to the Humane Society myself
to get the copies of Duke and Stella's registration.
So, when I registered them, they send it to the township
and it's just kind of in limbo until the township puts it in their system.
And then, there's registration that the township says that I put in
on the 12th, is for Stella, which I have in my evidence packet.
Okay, thanks for that information. Let me ask you a couple of questions.
-This is your eye, correct? -[Amy] Yes.
[Patricia] Did you put an insurance claim in for these injuries?
-[Amy] Yes. -Because I have something here saying,
that you have limited vision now, sensitivity, you can't work, et cetera.
That was for an MDA exception because I was working for a bank at the time,
that I could've had an infraction, like, I could've faced being fired, potentially,
because I was not there for six months yet when the attack happened in August.
'Cause you were probationary still at that time with the job.
Your medical bills were $802. No reimbursement for that?
That includes the reimbursement. So, it came out to $802
after the medical bill reimbursed by my insurance, yeah.
And $960 for your lost wages, ma'am. How did that come about?
That was in August and then again, in December.
I had to leave my work, and I was so emotionally distraught
from it happening again, I was unable to work for another day.
So, I lost two days worth of income in December
and two and a half days worth of income in August.
[Patricia] Future egg earnings, $200? But didn't you replace the hens?
No. Three of the hens that were killed were what's called an ISA Brown breed.
And they're the highest producing breeds of chickens.
One or two eggs every single day. So, I was calculating that I lost,
you know, two dozen eggs a week, basically,
out of those chickens being killed.
And I was unable to replace them from August to December
because there's a shortage of chickens.
Okay, $3,192 for hen care.
What does that mean? You stayed home with the hens
and you're charging him $3,000 for that?
Well, the hens that I had gotten in May,
they have to be raised for seven full months before they're laying.
So, that was the investment of time that I put in, in order to then be able
-to recoup that investment... -[Patricia] I got it.
It's gonna take you time, but it's a bit much.
Even for Pancake, Maple Syrup and Egg Foo Yong.
Whatever you named the third one. That's a lot.
I don't have any other questions.
I'm sorry, I got two more questions. Mr. Linville,
did you buy another pit bull?
Do you have another one in your home right now?
[Narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
He admitted that he still has Duke today in violation of your order.
That doesn't mean that they're gonna take away your dog.
That means, they're gonna prosecute him for lying to the police.
You just bought yourself a criminal charge. Congratulations.
Mr. Linville, did you buy another pit bull?
Do you have another one in your home right now?
-No. -[Adam] No. Okay.
And then, the last point, you provided us with this little statute here
saying that she's only allowed to have four hens.
Here's the problem with that. Law enforcement came to her house
on multiple occasions and never cited her for that. Never.
So, I don't know what the law is, what I do know,
according to the police report on December 12th.
They reached out to you, police, and asked you
if you had rehomed your remaining dog. That was Duke.
'Cause you said to them you were gonna rehome Duke.
"And Alex let me know that Duke is still in his care,
and has an appointment on Friday with the Van Buren Animal Hospital."
-That's what you told them, right? -Mm hmm.
I then asked if he was still planning to rehome Duke,
as we discussed and he agreed upon.
I said I was gonna be looking into rehoming...
That's not what it says here. And at 18:45, I have not heard back.
That's law enforcement had not heard back from you about rehoming Duke.
And that law enforcement will follow up.
Quote, "If he does not rehome Duke, I will send the report
to the prosecutor's office for review."
That doesn't mean that they're gonna take away your dog.
-That means, they're gonna prosecute him. -Mm hmm.
[Adam] After you leave here, you go back, you speak to Animal Control,
and you say, he admitted that he still has Duke today
in violation of your order. They are going to file the charge
with the prosecutor's office,
and you just bought yourself a criminal charge
for lying to the police. Congratulations. I got nothing else.
We're gonna retire to deliberate at this time. Thank you both.
[Byrd] Court now stands in recess. Parties are excused.
To me, liability is established. These dogs had a history of getting out.
He knew they had a history of getting out. His attempts to deny responsibility,
it was ridiculous. He just doesn't get it. Period.
It's clear that Animal Control is out for him in his area.
They put it in their report that if he does not do as he said he would do,
by rehoming the dogs,
they're going to refer it to the DA's office
and chances are, they're gonna prosecute him.
And quite frankly, they should.
He lied to the police, once again, and that's just what he does.
He just doesn't care. So to me, the only issue here, really,
is one of damages. The $3,200 that she is claiming
to raise these new chickens to replace the old ones...
Listen, I know it's a big figure, it's only $15 an hour
that she's including in that.
She wouldn't have had to spend that time, but for the Defendant's conduct.
So, I know it's a big number, but I think she gets it.
The vet bills, she established, $1,105.
The medical bills, $800, I believe she should get that.
The five days of lost wages, I'm not convinced on that one.
I believe that she gets the lost wages as a result of the August incident.
It's $380. But not for the incident in December.
She wasn't injured in December. And the assorted other expenses,
I would just give her the $60 for the four replacement hens.
So, we have... $3,200, $1,105, $800...
$380 and $60.
That equals $5,545.
That's what I believe the evidence has established
that she should get as a result of this incident.
I'm with you on liability, I'm not sure I'm there on damages.
Help me understand why she's going
to spend $3,000 raising the chicks
I don't have any evidence about the difference
between the amount of care that a young chick requires
and what she's gonna have to do just because you have chickens, so...
I don't even know that I'm comfortable enough slicing it in half.
And I'm open, but I'm not there on that figure.
The rest of her damages, I can digest.
I can digest $200 in future egg earnings.
Um, but... I like really fresh eggs.
Um, I can digest some of it. I can't digest the $3,200 in hen care.
Well, I'm with you. Because I have absolutely no problem with the liability,
so I know we're all on board with that. I mean, it's pretty clear
that he wanted to defend his puppies as much as he wanted to.
But he just couldn't, and do so with any real credibility.
-He was trying. -I mean, he went out of his way.
But he didn't. So, I'm willing to do as follows:
I'm willing to give the $1,105 for the vet bills,
$800 for the medical bills. I'm willing to take two and a half days
because her eye was difficult for her,
so I'm willing to stick with the $380 for that.
The $40 for the property damage I'm willing to do
and the $60 for the replacement hens. I agree with you in that
the total cost for the hen care... I mean, how do I know
if you're gonna go out and take care of your hens
and you're gonna take care of your chicks. Maybe the chicks don't even require
as much 'cause they're infants and whatever. So, the bottom line is,
I'm not willing to give the care
to take care of them and the future egg earnings.
I mean, I think it's too speculative. My verdict comes down to...
So, it's five... eighteen... nine... ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen,
$2,385 is my verdict.
I don't feel so strongly about future egg earnings
that I've gotta stick to that. I would join you.
-Okay. -[Tanya] I would join you.
-So, $2,385? -Correct.
-Okay. -Are you okay with that as well?
No, I'm gonna stick with mine, but I'll dissent on the amount.
And I'll make it clear.
-Okay, I'm good with that. Thank you. -[Adam] No problem.
[Byrd] Court is back in session.
Parties are reminded you're still under oath.
Thank you, Byrd. We deliberated and we are unanimous
with respect to liability. The Plaintiff has met her burden.
And that you are, in fact, entitled to damages based upon the negligence
of the Defendant in this matter.
Where we are not unanimous is with respect to the amount.
I dissented from my colleagues, respectfully.
I believed that you were for the big ticket item entitled to the $3,200
cost to raise the new chicks that were gonna replace the hens
that the Defendant's dogs killed. My colleagues, however, did not agree.
You requested $6,500.
And so, they deducted the $3,200 from the $6,500.
As far as the five day lost wages, we all agreed
that you were not entitled to the time off from work in December,
despite the fact that clearly, it was emotional for you,
having relived what you lived in August. But all of us agreed to $380
as an award down from the $960. And as far as the $200 for the eggs,
my colleagues did not agree. So, based upon the calculations,
the amount that you will receive as a result of the Defendant's negligence
is $2,385. That's the verdict of the court. Thank you.
[Byrd] This case is concluded. Parties are excused, you may step out.
I can assure everyone that the situation will not happen again.
I think no animal deserves to die like that,
but no dogs deserve to be as neglected as that.
One of the dogs is already rehomed
and the other dog is being neutered shortly when I get back.
Hopefully, we can move beyond this
and just all live in peace as much as possible
in our pursuit of happiness.
It's a shame I didn't get to enjoy these egg-cellent chickens.
[Narrator] Have you been cheated? Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.