154 



FEROOTOUS AND VICIOUS ANIMALS. 



Where a 

 Horse bit 

 some other 

 Plorses. 



Breakiug" 

 Horses in a 

 jpublic place. 



Where a IMad 

 Bull wounds 

 a person. 



Wliere a Bull 

 singled out a 

 person wear- 

 insr red. 



Where a Earn 

 injured a 

 person. 



Where a 

 vicious beast 

 kills a person. 



tlie local authority to place restrictions upon Dogs being at 

 large, if danger from mad Dogs is apprehended {d). 



Where it was stated in a Declaration, that the defen- 

 dant kept his Horse so negligently that it broke into the 

 plaintiff's close, and bit some of his Horses, so that 

 " they were spoilt and died," a verdict was found for the 

 plaintiff, but Judgment was arrested because no scienter 

 was alleged {e). But where, through the defect of a gate 

 which the defendant was bound to repair, the defendant's 

 Horse strayed into a field belonging to the plaintiff, and 

 kicked the plaintiff's Horse, it was held that the plaintiff 

 was entitled to recover, as the damage resulted from a 

 trespass for which the defendant was responsible, and, 

 therefore, proof of scienfer was unnecessary (/). 



Where, however, a servant breaking an ungovenuihle 

 pair of Horses in Lincoln's Inn Fields, ran over and hurt 

 a man, it was held that no scienfer was necessary, as a 

 place so frequented by the public was an improper place 

 for Horse-breaking (g). 



But where a Bull made mad, from having been " cut 

 or hoxed," escaped through the defendant's negligence, 

 and tossed, gored and wounded the plaintiff', and a verdict 

 was found for him, the Judgment was arrested, because 

 there was no scienfer alleged in the Declaration (//). 



And where a Bull passing along a highway, seeing 

 the plaintiff with a red handkerchief, ran at and gored 

 him, the decision turned upon the question, whether or not 

 the owner of the Bull knew that he had a tendency to run 

 at any person wearing red (i). 



So, too, in a case in which a Eam, which is an animal 

 known to be mischievous at certain seasons, butted and 

 injured the Plaintiff''s wife in the street, the Court of 

 Exchequer held that the owner of the animal was not liable 

 to an action in the absence of evidence that he was aware 

 of its propensity to attack passers-by (/.•). 



If through negligence a vicious beast goes abroad, 

 after warning or Nofice of his condition, and kills a 



[d) As to proof of ownership 

 under this section, see Wren v. 

 Focock, 34 L. T., N. S. C97. 



{() Scctclictt v. FJtham, Freem. 

 o34 (C.P.). 



(/) Lre V. Riley, 18 C. B., N. S. 

 722 ; 34 L. J., C. P. 212. See also 

 Fi/ixv. I.of/iis Irov To., L. E,., 10 

 C. P. TO;"44L. .T.,C.P. 24 ; 31 L. 



T., K S. 483; 23W. R. 246. 



{'l) 3IicJiael v. Alestrce, 2 Lev. 

 172; S. C. 1 Vent. 295. 



(//) Boyntine v. Sharp, 1 Lutw. 

 90. 



(0 Iludsou V. Foherts, 6 Ex. 697. 



(/•) Jaekson v. S.mithmi, 15 M. & 

 W. 563. 



