356 



FEROCIOUS AND VICIOUS ANIMALS. 



Shooting a 

 Dog for wor- 

 rying Fowls. 



act ; but it is sufficient if it appear that he has been accus- 

 tomed to worry Sheep, and that just before he was shot he 

 had been Avorr^dng Sheep, and could not have been other- 

 wise restrained from further doing- so (>•). 



It has, however, been held that a person cannot justify 

 shooting a Dog worrjdng his Fowls, unless it appear that 

 the Dog was in the very act at the time, and could not 

 otherwise be prevented (s) . But it would seem that if the 

 transaction had taken place in the person's Poultry-yard, 

 it would be enough to show that the Dog iras 2)ursHing the 

 Fowl. Because when a Dog is killed pursuing Conies in 

 a warren, it is sufficient to state that the Dog was pursuing 

 Conies there, and it is not necessary to prove that the Dog 

 could not otherwise be prevented killmg them {f). 



{>•) KcUctt V. Stannard, 4 Ir. Jur. (/) IJ^adhurst 



50 (Ex. Ir.). Jac. 44. 



(s) Janson v. Broioi, 1 Camp. 41. 



V. Damme, Cro. 



