348 



FEROCIOUS AND VICIOUS ANIMALS. 



As to Animals 



fera naturce 

 only, scienter 

 unnecessary. 



"What ought 

 to be the lia- 

 bility of the 

 person keep- 

 ing them. 



The Athenian 

 and Roman 

 laws. 



Thus in the case of Bcsozzi v. Ham's (h), the defendant 

 was owner of a bear, which he left fastened by a chain six 

 feet long, on a part of his premises accessible to persons 

 frequenting his house. The plaintiff walking past his 

 house was seized by the bear, and injured. An action 

 being brought for damages for this injury, it appeared at 

 the trial tliat there was no notice or caution, written or 

 verbal, to those visiting the premises, but the bear was 

 proved to have been always tame and docile in its habits 

 up to the time of this attack being made on the plaintiff. 

 The evidence was contradictory as to the plaintiff's know- 

 ledge of the bear being there. Mr. Justice Crowder thus 

 laid down the law to the Jury, "The statement in the 

 declaration, that the defendant knew the bear to be of a 

 fierce nature, must be taken to be proved, as every one 

 must know that such animals as lions and bears are of a 

 savage nature. For though such nature may sleep for a 

 time, this case shows that it may wake up at any time. 

 A person who keeps such an animtil is bound so to keep it 

 that it shall do no damage. If it be insufficiently kept, or 

 so kept that a person passing is not sufficiently protected, 

 the owner is liable. If the plaintiff, with knowledge that 

 the bear was there, put herself into a position to receive the 

 injury, she could not recover. But, assuming such know- 

 ledge, it is for you to say, whether she had such notice of 

 the proximity of the bear as would amount to negligence 

 disentitling her to recover." The Jury found for the 

 plaintiff. 



It would appear, however, only fair and right that 

 whoever keeps an animal of any description, should keep 

 it at his risk, and that for any injmy occasioned by it he 

 ought to be cirilh/ responsible, whether he know of its 

 mischievous propensities or not. And it ought only to be 

 necessary to prove a scienter, where it is sought to make 

 him criminally responsible. 



Neither the Athenian nor Roman law required it to be 

 proved, that the owner had Notice of the mischievous 

 propensities of the animal. They probably thought that 

 for civil purposes, when A. sustains damage by the horns, 

 hoofs or teeth of an animal in which B. has a beneficial 

 property, and over which he has the exclusive control, it is 

 for B., and not for A., an innocent stranger, to ascertain 



[h) Besozzi \. maris, 1 F. & F. 92. 



