350 



FEROCIOUS AND VICIOUS ANIMALS. 



In England 

 a scienter is 

 held neces- 

 sary. 



Where a Doc 

 bites a per- 

 son. 



Not enough 

 to show that 

 the Dog was 

 of a fierce 

 disposition. 



Report that 

 Dog had been 

 bitten by a 

 Mad DOS'. 



Where Dog 

 had bitten a 

 child. 



and wMcli I am inclined to think tliat we in England have 

 sometimes too readily acted on" (//). 



By the law of England, as laid down in a large number 

 of cases, a scienter is held necessary (A) ; and therefore, as 

 there is practically no efficient means of keeping snapping 

 Dogs, &c. off the Highways, every Dog has the opportunity 

 of indulging once in the luxury, not, since the 28 & 29 Yict. 

 e. 60 (as to which see post, p. 352), of worrying Sheep, 

 as suggested by Lord Cockbm-n, but of biting men, women 

 and childi'en. But it was the opinion of the Com-t in 

 Smith V. Cook (/) that the rule requiring proof of scienter 

 in the case of injuries by animals mansuetce naturce is an 

 artificial rule which ought not to be extended. 



Thus, where the plaintiff was severely bit by a fierce 

 mongrel Mastiff, which the owner allowed to range the 

 streets of London unmuzzled, it was held that to recover 

 damages the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew 

 the Dog to be of a mischievous natui'e (/r). 



And it was held by Lord Ellenborough in an action o)i 

 the Case for keeping a Dog, which bit the plaintiff, that 

 it was not sufficient to show that the Dog was of a fierce 

 and savage disposition, that he was usually tied up by the 

 defendant, and that the defendant promised to make a 

 pecuniary satisfaction to the plaintiff after the latter had 

 been bitten by the Dog (/). But, in the later case of 

 Thomas v. Morgan {ni), such an offer to make satisfaction 

 was held to be evidence, though slight, of the defendant's 

 knowdede:e of the habits of the animal: 



In an action on the Case for keeping a mischievous Dog, 

 by which the plaintiff's child was bitten, Report of the 

 Dog having been bitten by a Mad Dog was held to be 

 evidence to go to the Jury, that the plaintiff hneio the Dog 

 was mischievous and ought to be confined, and particularly 

 as by tying up the Dog he had showTi some knowledge or 

 suspicion of the fact {n). 



It was held also in the case of Ge thing v. Morgan (o), 

 that where a Dog had bitten a girl foui' years before he 

 worried the plaintiff's Sheep, an action would lie. 



iff) On- V. Fleming, 25 L. T. 73. 



(h) But see dictum of Mr. Justice 

 Maule, post, in Cardy. Case, 5 C. B. 

 634. See, however, per Erie, C. J. , 

 and Willes, J., Cox v. Burbridgc, 

 13 C. B., N. S. 430, 436. 



(i) L. R., 1 Q. B. D. 79; 45 L. 

 J., Q. B. 122 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 722; 



24 W. R. 206. 



(/.■) Mason v. Keeling, 12 Mod. 

 332. 



{I) Bed;, v. Dyson, 4 Camp. 198. 



{m) 2 C, M. & R. 496. 



(;?) Jones v. rerrij, 2 Esp. 482. 



(o) Gcthing v. Morgan, N. P., 

 Q. B., May 1, 1857. 



