156 FEROCIOUS BOAR. 



dog to kill animals wliicli arc fcrcr. nainrcv, as hares, cats, &c.; but it is 

 not natural to a boar to kill anytliino- ; and therefore in the case of a 

 dog- there might have been a question whether the word anhnalia had 

 been good in the declaration, because it might have been intended of 

 some such animals as they naturally bite and kill. But since a boar 

 does not naturally kill any, it shall be intended as before is said." 

 And therefore the plaintiff had judgment, as after verdict, the Court 

 intended that anhnaUa were such animals as could support the action 

 (1 Ld. Raym. 110). 



Ferocious do//. — To sustain an action against a person for negligently 

 keeping a ferocious dog, it is not necessary to show that the dog has 

 bitten another person before it bit the plaintiff : it is sufficient to show 

 that the dog has to the knowledge of the o^^-ner shown a savage dispo- 

 sition by attempting to bite (Worth v. GiUinff, 2 L. R. C. P. 1). 



In Fletcher v. Fiijlmuh, 1 L. R. Ex. 2G5, it was held that one, who, 

 fca- his own purposes, brings upon his land, and collects and keeps there, 

 anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, is, prima facie, answerable 

 for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. Sec 

 also Smith v. FMclier, 7 L. R. Ex. 305. 



But in the case of Smith v. Great Eastern, Railway Comiiany, 2 L. R. 

 C. P. 4, where a passenger was bitten by a stray dog at defendants' 

 station, the Court decided in favour of the defendants, on the ground 

 that there was no evidence of negligence on their part. 



The difficulty in Emery v. Peal^e seemed to be, whether the habits of 

 the dogs had ever reached the defendant's ears. This was a Warwick 

 Assize action against a clergyman for keeping a dog accustomed to bite 

 mankind. His two Skye terriers, while in company with Mrs. Peake, 

 who was visiting some sick poor, flew on the plaintiff, and bit him in 

 the leg and ancle, lie exclaimed, " Oh, dear ! I am lit ! " and the 

 lady expressed her sorrow. The leg bled very much, and became so 

 bad that he could not work, in consequence of the deep sore and wounds 

 BO occasioned, and he required medical attendance for two months. 

 The defendant refused to see him when he called at the vicarage, 

 and sent him half-a-crown. It was proved that the dogs had often 

 before attacked and bitten people, and that among others the family 

 butcher and his son had been bitten at, and had their trowscrs torn, 

 though their boots saved their legs. Both these witnesses had com- 

 plained to the servants. Mr. and Mrs. Peake gave the dogs a good 

 character: the former had heard no complaints against his dogs, 

 though the latter had heard of the trowser-tearing. Other witnesses 

 also deposed to the peaceable dispositions of "Mustard" and "Pepper;" 

 but there was a verdict for the plaintiff, damages .-EGO. 



