The Law of the Land. have had the greatest trouble to establish his magna charta of rights. Blackstone says that dogs, being of no intrinsic value, but being kept only through the whim or ca price of their owners, cannot be the subject of larceny. Under George III. the dog's legal status was advanced, and to steal a dog was made subject to penal punishment by fine or imprisonment, and for the second offense, in addition the dog-stealer was to be whipped. Yet it has been held that dogs were entitled to less legal regard and pro tection than more harmless and useful domestic animals. Continuing to grow in favor in the eyes of the law, courts have held that the same liberty did not appertain to 'the horse as to the dog, for dogs are a domestic ani mal, which everybody in every place owns, and keeps, and suffers to go at large. The custom is almost as old as time", for Tobit had his dog. The universality of this cus tom, has made the practice lawful, unless where it is interdicted by statute. Legislatures have at times required a uni form good moral character of dogs. A local statute of Pennsylvania at one time directed that dogs should be chained or housed at night. Where dogs killed sheep, it was held that under this statute it was unnecessary to prove that the dogs were addicted to killing sheep and that their own ers had knowledge of this viciousness. The law dispensed with the scienter. The fact that the dogs were abroad at night, not chained or housed, was sufficient to make their owners liable for the damages done. Generally it is now held that dogs belong to the class of domestic animals which are not ordinarily dangerous, but when they become mischievous, and knowledge of this is brought home to the owner, he is liable in damages for the misdemeanors of his dog. It has been declared that the scienter is not the negligent keeping of the dog, but the keeping of him with knowledge of his vicious disposition. The circumstances may be
77
such that the scienter virtually proves itself. If the dog has been muzzled and is then let loose without a muzzle, or if a dog is chained in the daytime and let loose at night, these facts of themselves can establish the scienter. There have been circumstances in which it has been held not only that no scienter need be proven, but that the public is entitled to notice from the owner of a domestic ani mal likely to be vicious. In an English case it was said: "In case of a dangerous animal likely to do mischief to another in a private close, it should seem that public notice ought to be given, although no one has a right to enter. If there be a foot-path in a close and a dangerous animal is put in there, the owner must give notice or he will be liable to an action for any injury committed." It was decided that a bull that broke into a neighboring field and gored a horse till he died, created a liability to pay for the horse by the owner of the bull, with out regard to his being aware of any vicious propensity in the bull or otherwise; the ground of the decision being that the ani mal was naturally inclined to roam, and often guilty of mischief when going off on one of his larks, therefore it was the duty of the owner to keep him on his own land. The foregoing forces the conclusion that when you see a sign in a field, " Beware of the Bull," and you enter, that it will make no difference whose ox is gored, there will be no damages. A plaintiff suffered his horse to go at large in the streets of a city, and was com pelled to pay damages for injury done by the horse kicking a child, without it being proved or averred that the owner knew the horse was vicious and had a habit of kick ing. The horse might have been of good repute, but there was danger to let him run loose in the streets, from the nature and disposition of the horse to gambol, plunge, and kick up his heels. It is not necessary that the injury results from a misehievous or vicious disposition of
