LAW OF THE FARM. 287 



who made considerable pretentions to a Icnowledge of the law, and was withal 

 a smooth and voluable talker, and very slippery. The neighbors paraphrased 

 his name and called him Trouteel. Trouteel espoused the side of the gored ox. 

 The parties wanted to settle the case, which only involved the value of the 

 ox; but these pettifoggers knew their business. The result was a lawsuit. 

 Whoever is acquainted with early pioneer life will not need to be told that the 

 day of a lawsuit is an event of considerable importance in a new country. 

 "Trouteel" was too much for "Sal" before the justice, and the owner of 

 the ox obtained judgment for thirty dollars. The case was taken to the 

 higher court and after about a year and a half of litigation the case was 

 reversed and judgment rendered against the "Emperor" who owned the 

 gored ox for all the costs amounting to about one hundred and eighty dollars. 

 In order to pay this and his other expenses and lawyer's fees he was obliged to 

 mortgage his farm. Besides the expense several neighbors were more or less 

 edgewise towards each other for several years. 



The principles of the common law upon which this case was decided in favor 

 of the unlucky bull, govern all cases of this character when no statute inter- 

 venes ; these are as old as the common- law, so old that the memory of man 

 runneth not to the contrary. They date back to the days of Abraham, Isaac, 

 and Jacob, whose flocks and herds grazed at large on the fertile plains of 

 Assyria. 



In another case, when a bull running at large in the public highway suddenly 

 plunged at a valuable horse and gored it to death, the owner was held to be 

 liable. 



So in two bitter law suits on account of killing sheep, which occurred in our 

 vicinity in an early day, when there was no question about the dogs killing sheep 

 because they were seen in the act. In one case the owner of the dog was held 

 liable, and in the other not. All these cases depended on an if; and it is quite 

 important to know when the if comes in. The law in each case was the same. 

 There were facts and circumstances which differed. 



The common law declares that the owner or keei^r of animals is liable for 

 any injury wMcli, hy Ms negligence, they are alloioed to inflict, except where the 

 fault of the imrty injured contrihUes to the injury sustained. 



The question is, therefore, in all such cases one of negligence. What con- 

 stitutes negligence on the part of a farmer in the care of animals is what he 

 wants to know. The farmer's flocks and herds sometimes become vicious and 

 do injury to persons and animals. They sometimes injure or destroy the crops. 

 They are sometimes killed or injured by railroads. This question of neg- 

 ligence respecting animals also involves the matter of fences. 



Indeed, a large part of litigation in which the farmer becomes involved grows 

 out of the care of what he calls his stock, among which we may reckon his 

 dog. It might, therefore, be made au interesting and profitable inquiry to the 

 farmer. 



LECTURE NUMBER TWO. 



Domestic animals, such as cattle, sheep, hogs, horses, and even dogs are 

 presumed to be of an amiable disposition, and not naturally inclined to be 

 vicious. Hence it is not considered negligent in the owner to allow them to 

 run at large, when no law forbids. A farmer has no reason to apprehend 



