The Animal Kingdom in Court.
2()l
deep into the flesh of Beck's dearly beloved of a trespass, on the defendant's lands, that wife. She was dreadfully lacerated, and we there is a liability without scienter. But it suspect equally vexed and wrathy, and who seems to be considered that this would not could blame her if she dragged Dyson to apply to a dog. The question of proximity the bar of justice and asked for damages, and remoteness of damages has to be con substantial damages? It was proved that sidered, and while the fact that the defend the dog was of a fierce and savage disposi ant's stallion, as in the last case, kicked and tion, that the defendant generally kept him bit the plaintiff's mare while trespassing on tied up, and that the defendant also sought the plaintiff's land was not considered too to placate and soothe the before-mentioned remote, it is questionable whether the same wrathiness of Mrs. Beck by an offer of pe rule would govern where a dog running cuniary recompense. But even-handed jus under a fence kills chickens. Certainly in tice in the light of judicial decision decreed Read vs. Edwards, 17 C. B. N. S., just such that as the dog was never known to have a case, the presence of scienter seems to previously fallen from grace in the way of have been required though the dog was a biting human beings, the plaintiff was non trespasser on the plaintiff's property. suited. The principle of the two cases Though there are many cases more or above quoted wa^ pushed so far in a House less important, each contributing its share of Lords case, Fleming vs. Orr, 2 Macq. 14, to the moulding of the laws, it is believed where the dog had worried sheep, that an there are none of very great importance be act was passed for Scotland doing away tween the time of the deciding of the above, with the necessity for scienter in cases of and the rendering of decision of the last sheep worrying, and this law has been intro case on the pages of the reports, namely, duced into Ontario (R. S. O. c. 214). But Osborne vs. Chocquerd, 2 Q. B. 1896, p. 109. the general features of the law, other than in There the plaintiff, who had had unpleas the case of sheep, remain practically intact. ant contact with a dog, sought to make its It has been decided that attempts to bite owner liable, and essayed to establish scien people will suffice, but a warning to " be ter by proof that on a previous occasion the ware of the dog " won't establish ferocity. dog had shown a hostile feeling to a goat — Though we have seen that keeping a dog had, in fact, handled the goat quite roughly. tied up falls short of being evidence, yet But Lord Russell of Killowen laid it down this, coupled with general report that the emphatically that ferociousness towards man dog was mad, will do. A man must be will support an action for ferociousness prac careful how he places a vicious dog on his tised on an animal, and even that that qual place even as a protection. If the person ity previously exhibited towards animals injured is a wrong-doer in entering where would suffice, where the damage is the re the dog is, he cannot complain; but if his sult of similar acts. The killing of a dog is mission be innocent, or even it he goes as a permissible if nothing short of that will beggar, he can succeed in an action if in prevent its viciousness toward man or beast. jured. Closely allied, and to some extent But the decisions do not favor this, and it is apt to be confounded with the subject under a rare case where it can be justified. Dogs consideration, is the question of trespass. taken red-handed or damage feasant may The cases of Lee vs. Riley 18 C. B. N. S., be distrained, and even when within whistle and Ellis vs. Loftus Iron Works, L. R. 10 of the master. Where both the master and C. P., decide that where an animal of the dog are trespassers together on the plain defendant's, causes damage on the plaintiff's tiff's land scienter is not necessary, and property while, and as a natural consequence plaintiff will succeed. — The Barrister.
