FEUOCIOUS DOG. 157 



In the case of Gladman v. Jolinson, 30 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 153, the 

 plaintiff was bitten by the defendant's dog : the defendant was a milk- 

 man, and was assisted in his business by his wife. To establish the 

 scienter a witness was called, who stated that she had made a 

 formal complaint to defendant's wife, for the purpose of its being- 

 communicated to the husband, of the dog; haviug bitten her nephew, 

 held, that there was evidence of the husband's knowledge of the dog's 

 propensity to bite ; and in Baldwin v. CasMla, 7 L. R. Ex. 325, that if 

 the owner of a dog appoints a servant to keep it, the servant's know- 

 ledge of the dog's ferocity is the knowledge of the master. See also 

 Ajjplehee v. Percy, 9 L. R. C. P. G47. 



The Court of Queen's Bench decided in Hartley v. Harriman that 

 evidence of the dogs Veiny accustomed to attacTc men did not support a 

 scienter that they were accustomed to attack sheep. Here the plaintiff 

 had sent the gardener with his compliments to the defendant, to sny 

 that he feared there would be danger if his dogs often crossed the field 

 where his sheep, which were of a peculiar breed, were feeding. The 

 defendant replied that he kept dogs to defend his house, and would if 

 he pleased keep fifty more. When the gardener took the message he 

 also told the defendant that he had been attacked by the dogs at the 

 plaintiff's own door. There was other evidence that the dogs had 

 attacked men, and that a voice had once been heard on the defendant's 

 premises calling them off, and also that they had once or twice run 

 after sheep ; but there was no proof that they had ever bitten or 

 harmed any sheep before this event, and it was contended that there 

 was no evidence to support the scienter. Wood B. overruled the ob- 

 jection on the ground that there was evidence of the dogs having 

 attacked different men, and particularly the plaintiff's gardener, to the 

 knowledge of the defendant. The jury found a verdict for the value 

 of the sheep, but the Court made the rule absolute for a new trial. 

 Lord Etlenlorouyh said: " The plaintiff has, I fear, tied up his com- 

 plaint by the allegation of the particular habits of those dogs (viz., 

 that ' they were used and accustomed to hunt, chase, bite, worry, and 

 kill sheep and lambs'), and of the defendant's knowledge of those 

 habits. For unless it be inferred that a dog accustomed to attack men 

 is ipso facto accustomed also to attack sheep, there is no evidence to 

 support this declaration." But semble, that an averment that the dogs 

 were of a ferocious and mischievous disposition would be sufficient in 

 an action brought for an injury to plaintiff's sheep, without alleging 

 specifically that they were accustomed to bite and worry sheep (ib.). 



The Court of Session in Scotland held in Orr v. Fleminy, by three 

 judges to one, that no scienter need be proved to make the master of a 



