FEROCIOUS AND VICIOUS ANIMALS. 351 



And it is not necessary to show that the Dog has bitten Not necessary 

 another man before it bit the plaintiff ; it is sufficient *° ^^9^ ^^'^^ 

 to show that the defendant knew it had evinced a savage bitten an- 

 disposition by attempting to bite (p). other man. 



Where the defendants have done all that is reasonable to stray Do"' on 

 get rid of a stray dog which has come on to their premises, defendant's 

 they are not liable for injury it may do (q). prenuses. 



Where the defendant was a milkman, and his wife occa- Evidence of 

 sionally attended to his business, carried on in the premises Scienter. 

 where he kept the Dog, it was held that a complaint that 

 the Dog had bitten a person, made to the wife on the 

 premises, to be communicated to the husband, was evidence 

 of scienter (r). So, where complaint was made to two men 

 serving customers behind the bar of the defendant's public- 

 house out of which the dog had come ; not'wdthstanding 

 that there was no evidence that these complaints were 

 communicated to the defendant ; or that either of the men 

 spoken to had the general management of the defendant's 

 business or had the care of the dog (s). These two cases 

 ajopear to have been decided upon the inference that the 

 persons to whom notice of the Dog's ferocity had been 

 given had communicated such notice to the defendant. 



If the o"\vner of a Dog appoints a servant to keejD it, the 

 servant's knowledge of the Dog's ferocity is the knowledge 

 of the master (t). But notice to an ordinary servant is 

 not sufficient {u). 



An action may be maintained against a person for Damage done 

 damages done to the plaintiff's game by his Dog, which by Dog to 

 was in the habit of hunting game on its own account, and ff^action°"^ 

 in a peculiarly destructive manner, a fact known to the 

 defendant, who also knew that the plaintiff preserved 

 game (x). 



And in a case in which the plaintiff's Horse took fright, Horse 

 and damaged itself, in consequence of the defendant's Dogs frig^^tened by 

 running out and barking at him, a verdict was given for thereby 

 the plaintiff with damages to the amount of 53/. 10s. {//). damaged. 



{p) Worth V. Gillinff, L. R., 2 C. {t) Baldwin v. CascUa, L. E,., 



P. 1. 7 Ex. 325; 41 L. J., Ex. 167; 



[q) Smith V. Great Eastern Rail- 26 L. T., N. S. 707 ; 21 W. R. 16. 

 way Co., L. E., 2 C. P. 4. («) Ibid. And see judgments of 



(r) Gladman v. Johnson, 36 L. J., Lord Coleridge, C. J., and Brett, J., 



C. P. 153. in Applehec v. Fercy, uhi mpra. 



(s) Applehee y . Tercy , L. R., 9 C. (.r) Read V. Edwards, 11 L. T., 



P. 647 ; 43 L. J., C. P. 365 ; 30 L. N. S. 311. 



T., N. S. 785; 22 W. E. 704. Per (y) Read v. Einy, N. P., Guild- 

 Lord Coleridge, C. J., and Keat- hall, Jan. 26, 1858. 

 ing J. (Brett, .T., dissenting). 



