166 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



switch him, whereupon he turned and kicked one of them 

 so that he died, and the owner was convicted of manslaughter 

 (10 Cox, 102). Had he known the animal was dangerous, it 

 might have even been more serious with him, since, in the 

 Mosaic law, it was declared that if the owner of an ox knew 

 that it pushed with his horn, and did not keep it in, and it 

 killed a man or woman, not only the ox, but also the owner, 

 was put to death (Exod. xxi. 29). 



And now as to his liability for animals on his own premises. 

 Every owner of a dangerous or vicious animal known to be 

 such is liable for all injury he may do to another, even 

 though the latter is at the time trespassing on the former's 

 premises (27 Conn. 404; 124 Mass. 49; 3 E. D. Smith, 574). 

 If, therefore, a man, while hunting through your woods on 

 Sunday, is attacked and bitten by your savage dog, you must 

 pay for the pound of flesh, although you did not set him on 

 (17 Wend. 497). You should have posted up an advertise- 

 ment from St. Paul, — Beware of Dogs. And in like 

 manner, if a boy, while robbing an orchard, is tossed by a 

 vicious bull into the boughs of the apple-tree overhead, the 

 owner is as much liable in law to pay for the boy's torn 

 trousers as if he had received the same salutation when 

 boldly coming up the path in broad daylight to call on the 

 farmer's youngest daughter. In one instance a farmer, who 

 was much annoyed by strolling fishermen, put a savage bull 

 into the lot along the stream. On his neighbors remonstrat- 

 ing with him that he ought to give them notice what land of 

 animal it was, he remarked, "the fellow would give them 

 notice enough himself;" but, as his notice was rather too 

 brief, the farmer had to pay five hundred dollars for two 

 broken ribs (3 C. & P. 138). But this extreme and severe 

 liability absolutely depends upon the fact whether the owner 

 of the animal had any previous knowledge of the brute's 

 warlike disposition. If so, the mere keeping of such an ani- 

 mal unconfined is itself, in law, deemed culpable negligence. 

 If he did not know the fact, some other form of negligence 

 is essential in order to make an owner of an animal liable for 

 his conduct while on the owner's premises, or while lawfully 

 in the highway under the care of a keeper. For this reason, 

 if a man's horse runs away in the street, and injures some 

 one, or breaks a carriage, the owner is not liable, unless he 



