15S SHEEP WORRYIXG. 



dog who worries sheep liable. The defence was that there was no proof 

 that the foxhound iu question had shown any previous disposition to 

 attack sheep, and the Englisli cases were relied on. And^w Lord Cod- 

 hirn : " The law of England allo^YS each dog to have one worry with 

 impunity." Geftring x. Jlorgan was a later case of English sheep 

 worrying. Upon the trial of an action in the Monmouth County Court 

 for injuries, which were stated at £37 4.s-., to plaintiif's sheep hy 

 defendant's dogs, it was proved that four years before the same dogs 

 had, to defendant's knowledge, bitten a child eight years of age, who 

 was passing through del'endaut's Ibid in the daytime. It was held by 

 the Court of Queen's Bench that upon this evidence the judge was 

 justified in giving judgment for the plaintiff, and the judgment was 

 affirmed with costs (5 W. E. 53G ; E. T. 1857, Q. B.).. 



Lord Cam2)l}€ll C.J. said, "■ I am of opinion that our judgment should 

 be given for the plaintiff, even according to the law of England. Accord- 

 ing to the law of Scotland there is no occasion to show the previous 

 habits of the animal, or the scienter; and when an injury has been done 

 to an innocent person, it certainly seems more reasonable that the loss 

 should fall upon the owner of the animal which has done the mischief, 

 than upon the person injured : but Y confine myself now to the law of 

 England, which requires ihe allegation and pr oof of a previous lad hahit 

 hioini to the master. Now in the County Court there is no declaration; 

 but according to Hartley \. Harriman, it would be enough to allege that 

 the dogs were of a ferocious disposition to the knowledge of the owner. 

 Assuming, then, the declaration to have been in that form, can it be 

 said that there was in this case no evidence in support of that allegation, 

 when it is found that four years before the dogs had bitten a child eight 

 years old, as it was passing through the fold in the daytime ? In ray 

 opinion that was enough evidence to justify the judge in concluding 

 that the dogs were of a ferocious nature. According to Smith v. Pelali, 

 one instance of previous ferocity is sufficient, and though I would not 

 pronounce judgment of svs.jm- colt, upon the dog who had so offended, 

 I think he should ever afterwards be cautiously guarded, and that if he 

 is again guilty of ferocious violence, his master must be answerable for 

 it." And 2)er Cronqdon J. : "I agree that the question is, whether there 

 was such evidence that a jury could airly act upon, in finding for the 

 plaintiff ; and I think there was. In ordinary cases one previous act of 

 ferocity is enough to put the owner on his guard; and if he afterwards 

 permits his dogs, with knowledge of their vicious disposition, to run 

 about, with tickets of leave as it were, he must be responsible for any 

 further damage which they may do." 



Smith V. Petah (2 Str. 12G4) was also remarked upon iu Charlivood v. 



