DAMAGES, DELICT AND QUASI-DELICT. 215 



to the effect that it was not necessary to prove that the 

 owner knew that the horse was vicious, and that it did not 

 matter which horse began to kick, was approved of. (a) In 

 the other case, the plaintiff's and defendant's fields were 

 separated by a wire fence. In the p]aintifi"s field was a mare, 

 and in the defendant's a stallion. The animals came 

 together at the fence, and the stallion bit the mare, and 

 damages were brought for the injury. On evidence that the 

 defendants had been warned to keep their stallion away from 

 the mare, the Court held them liable for the damasre, on the 

 ground that the damage, though not the necessary result of 

 the trespass, Avas the direct and natural consequence of the 

 defendant's negligence in not duly restraining an animal 

 known by him to be vicious. (6) Again, damages to animals 

 have been considered the natural or probable result of negli- 

 gent fencing, and have been recovered on that ground in the 

 following cases :- — where a horse escaped into the defendant's 

 close, and was there killed by the falling of a haystack, (c) it 

 was held a natural result of the defendant's failure to 

 fence his property : — similarly, Avhere a defendant was bound 

 to fence the jalaintiff's property, and as the result of a breach 

 of the obligation, two cows strayed through the fence, ate 

 some leaves off a yew tree, in consequence of which they 

 died.(d) Again, a defendant had allowed a wire fence to 

 fall into disrepair, so that small pieces of iron broke off and lay 

 hidden in the grass. A cow ate some of tiie iron and died, and 

 the owner of the cow was held entitled to recover its value from 

 the defendant.(e) In another case, where a defendant planted 

 upon his own ground yew trees which in course of time 

 spread over the plaintiff's ground, and a horse ate some of 

 the leaves and was poisoned ; the defendant was found liable, 

 on the general principle that one Avho brings on his land any 



(«) Lee V. Rilct/, 1865, 18 C.B., N.S. 722. 



(6) Ellis V. Loftus Iron Co., 1874, L.R. 10 C.P. 10. 



(c) Powell V. Salisbury, 1828, 2 Y. and J. 391. 



(d) Lawrence v. Jenkins, 1873, L.Il. 8 Q.B. 274. 



(e) Firth V. Bowling Iron Co., 1878, L.K. 3 C.P.D. 254. 



