FEROCIOUS AND VICIOUS AXIMALS. 35^ 



defendants' boats, and having gone to their premises for 

 the piu'pose of inquiring for his luggage, which had been 

 left there with their consent, found them closed, but was 

 directed to inquire at other premises of the defendants 

 close at hand. He went there, and while there was bitten 

 by a Dog of the defendants chained up round an angle of 

 the building, so as to be previously out of sight of the 

 plaintiff. The Dog had to the knowledge of persons in 

 the employ of the defendants (but who had no control 

 over their business, or authority with respect to the Dog) 

 previously bitten another person. It was held that, as- 

 simiing the defendants to be aware of the dangerous nature 

 of the Dog, they (there being no diiference in this respect be- 

 tween a corporation and individuals) were liable in damages, 

 but that there was no evidence in this case of scienter 

 to enable the plaintiff to maintain his action, inasmuch as 

 the knowledge was not brought home to any person com- 

 petent to bind the defendants by his admissions, and who 

 was entrusted with the control of their business. And 

 Crompton, J., said, "It may be doubted whether the 

 knowledge should not be brought home to somebody who 

 kept and had the care of the Dog, and also the power of 

 putting an end to the keeping of him." 



Sect. 1 of the 34 & 35 Vict. c. 56 (The Dogs Act, 1871), The Dogs 

 provides that any police officer may take possession of any ^^*' ^^~^^- 

 Dog that he has reason to suppose to be savage or dan- 

 gerous straying on any highway, and not under the con- 

 trol of any person, and may detain such Dog until the 

 owner has claimed the same, and paid all expenses incurred 

 by reason of such detention. By sect. 2, any Court of 

 Summary Jurisdiction may take cognizance of a complaint 

 that a Dog is dangerous, and not kept under proper control, 

 and if it appears to the Court having cognizance of such 

 complaint that such Dog is dangerous, the Court may make 

 an order in a summary way directing the Dog to be kept 

 by the owner under proper control or destroyed, and any 

 person failing to comply with such order shall be liable to 

 a penalty not exceeding twenty shillings for every day 

 dm'ing which he fails to comply with such order. Under 

 this section the Court may orcler a dangerous Dog to be 

 destroyed, without giving the owner the option of keeping 

 it under proper control (rf). By sect. 3, power is given to 



{d) Flrlrring v. Marsh, 43 L. J., IM. ('. 143 ; 22 W. R. 798. 

 O. A A 



