FEROCIOUS AND VICIOUS ANIMALS, 355 



person, it is the opinion of Hale, that it is Mamlauglde)' 

 in the owner [1). And if he purposely let him loose, and 

 wander abroad, with a design to do mischief, even though 

 it were merely to frighten people and make sport, and the 

 beast kills a man, it is Murder in the owner (/). 



The owner of a vicious animal, after Notice of its Owner bound 

 having done an injury, is bound to secure it at all events, *? ?ecure a 



i'Tii'T-\ I 1 ^ n • • 1 VICIOUS ammal 



and IS liabie m Damages to a party subsequently injured, atalleveuts. 

 if the mode he has adopted to secure it proves iusufh- 

 cient {»i). 



A person who keeps an animal accustomed to attack and He is liable 

 bite mankind, -with knou-kdge that it is so accustomed, is ]P ^^ action 

 2)rimd facie liable in an action at the suit of any person ° ' ° ' 

 attacked and injured by such animal (^?), 



The gist of the action being the keeping of the animal The gist of 

 after knowledge of its mischievous propensities (n). the action. 



And it is not necessary to prove negligence or default in Not necessaiy 

 the seeming or taking care of it («). to prove 



If a man has an unruly Horse in his Stable, and leaves ^^° igence. 

 open- the Stable Door, and the Horse in consequence escapes Hoi-se^e^cap- 

 and does mischief, the ovaier is liable in an action (o). ing from a 



If a man turn an animal, which he knows to be a Stable. 

 dangerous one, out of a place where he may be restrained. Turning a 

 into a public thoroughfare, and the animal afterwards dangerous 

 kills a man, it will be Manslaughter, unless the person ammal loose, 

 accused can show that the act was done in self-preserva- slaughter. 

 tion [p). 



If a man turn out a Horse, which he knows to be vicious. Turning a 

 upon a Common with a footpath across it, and it kills a "Vicious Horse 

 child, he is guilty of Manslaughter ((/). _ Common. 



In an action for an injury by a ^deious Bull, the plain- jjj-,jj.y Q^^a- 

 tiff recovered, although it appeared that the Bull was sioned by a 

 attracted by a Cow the plaintiff was driving past the vicious Bull, 

 field in which the Bull was, and that the plaintiif first 

 struck the Bull on the head to drive him away from the 

 Cow {m). 



To justify a person in shooting a Dog for worrying his Shooting a 

 Sheep, it is not necessary to prove that he was shot in the ^?g ^°L^, "^°^" 



•^ ^ J. rymg Sheep. 



{!) See judgment— 7?«.r v. Hug- v. Rylands, L. R., 1 Ex. 265, 281. 



gins, 2 Ld. Raym. 1583, cited May (o) Michael v. Alestree, 1 Vent. 



V. Burdett, 9 Q. B. 107. 295. 



(w) BlackmauY, Simmons, 3 C. & [p) Per Bramwell, B., Eeq. v. 



P. 138. John Child, C. G. C. Feb. 4, 1858. 



(«) Ma}/ V. Burdett, 9 Q. B. 101. (?) Jieg. v. Dant, G. C. C. April 



See also Beso::i v. Jfarris, 1 F. & F. 29, 1865. 

 92, ante, p. 348. See also J-'l<-fchcr 



A A 2 



