352 



FEROCIOUS AND VICIOUS ANIMALS. 



Where a Dog 



worries 

 Sheep. 



Dictum of 

 Mr. Justice 

 Maule. 



Evidence of 

 mischievous 

 propensity- 

 unnecessary 

 under 28 & 29 

 Vict. c. GO. 



"Cattle" in- 

 cludes Horses 

 and Mares. 



Proof of 

 ownership. 



Sclent e)- may 

 be proved 

 against a 

 Corporation. 



Where an action on the Case was broiiglit for injury 

 done to the plaintiff's Sheep by a ferocious Dog kept by 

 the defendant, it was held that the ferocity of the Dog and 

 the scienter were the substance of the charge, and that 

 an allegation of duty in the defendant, to use due and 

 reasonable care and precaution in keeping the animal, was 

 immaterial (s). 



In this case, however, Mr. Justice Maule is reported to 

 have said, " It may be that the allegation of negligence, 

 coupled with the consequent damage to the plaintiff, would 

 show a cause of action" [a). 



But now, by the statute 28 & 29 Yict. c. 60, in the case 

 of injury by a Dog to Sheep or Cattle, evidence of a mis- 

 chievous propensity of the Dog or of the owner's knowledge 

 thereof is unnecessary ; and the act also simplifies in such 

 cases the proof of the ownership of the Dog. 



By sect. 1, " the owner of every Dog shall be liable in 

 damages for injury done to any Cattle or Sheep by his 

 Dog, and it shall not be necessary for the party seeking 

 such damages to show a previous mischievous propensity 

 in such Dog, or the owner's knowledge of such previous 

 propensity, or that the injury was attributable to neglect 

 on the part of the owner." The word "Cattle" in this 

 section includes Horses and Mares (i^). 



By sect. 2, " The occupier of any house or premises, 

 where any Dog was kept or permitted to live or remain at 

 the time of such injury, shall be deemed to be the owner 

 of such Dog, and shall be liable as such, unless the said 

 occupier can prove that he was not the owner of such Dog 

 at the time the injury complained of was committed, and 

 that such Dog was kept or permitted to live or remain in 

 the said house or premises without his sanction or know- 

 ledge ; provided always, that where there are more occu- 

 piers than one in any house or premises, let in separate 

 apartments or lodgings or otherwise, the occupier of that 

 particular part of the premises in which such Dogs shall 

 have been kept or permitted to live or remain at the time 

 of such injury shall be deemed to be the owner of such Dog." 



In the case of Stiles v. Cardiff Steam Navigation Com- 

 pany (c), the plaintiff was a passenger by one of the 



(z) Cardv. Case, 5 C. B. 622. 



(a) Ibid. 634. But see Orr v. 

 Fleming, 25 L. T. 73, and Cox v. 

 £Hrbridf/e,U C.B., N.S. 436—439. 



(b) Wright Y. Fcarson, L. R., 4 Q. 

 B. 582 ; 38 L. J., Q. B. 312 ; 20 L. 

 T., N. S. 849; 17 W. R. 1099. 



{c) Stiles V. Cardif Steam Naviga- 

 tion Co., 10 Jul-., N. S. 1199. 



