FEROCIOUS DOG. 159 



Greifj, where the declaration stated that the defendant wrongfully and 

 injuriously kept a certain dog of a ferocious and mischievous natiu-e, and 

 prone, used, and accustomed to attack, bite, and injure mankind, he 

 well knowing that the dog was such. To this the defendant pleaded not 

 (juiUy, and that the plaintiflF annoyed and irritated the dog, and thereby 

 caused him to bite, which latter plea was traversed by the replication. 

 The plaintiff, who was between five and six years old, and the child of 

 a hairdi'csscr, had put his arms round the neck of the defendant's 

 Danish dog, which had accompanied the servants to the shop on an 

 errand. It was shown that the dog had bitten persons twice before, but 

 only once to the defendant's knowledge. The latter insisted, in an inter- 

 view with the plaintiff's father, that it was the child's fault, and said, 

 " I want to impress upon you that dogs are uncertain things, and that 

 children should be kept from them." To this the plaintiff replied that, 

 " if they were such uncertain things, they ought to be muzzled ; " and 

 Cresswell J. said, " I am inclined to agree with him in that answer." 

 The plaintiff's witnesses had seen the dog run about Clapham Common 

 for years, but had never seen him fly at any one. His lordship observed, 

 in summing up, " The question is, was it a savage dog and accustomed 

 to bite mankind ? If you find a dog from time to time biting people 

 under circumstances which could not excite a dog of good temper, you 

 will say whether such a dog is a savage dog or not. There is a case 

 {Smith V. Pelah) which decides that ' if a dog has once bit a man, and 

 the owner having notice thereof lets him go about or lie at his door, an 

 action will lie against him by a person who is bitten, though it ha]3pened 

 by such person treading on the dog's toes; for it was owing to the 

 defendant not hanging the dog on the first notice, and the safety of tlie 

 king's subjects ought not to be endangered,' Our criminal code has 

 been much modified since that time, and that would not now be con- 

 sidered as a proper mode of proceeding. In the present case th master 

 certainly knew of one instance in which the dog had bitten a person 

 before, and you will say whether, after that, he ought not to have taken 

 more care with respect to it. It is not necessary that the dog should run 

 about and show a disposition to snap at and bite everybody ; a man of 

 a bad temper is not always in a bad temper. You will say first whether 

 the dog was a savage dog, and if so, whether the defendant knew it." 

 There was a verdict for the plaintiff for £25 (3 Car. & K. 4G). 



The decision of the Court of Exchequer in Hudson v. Roberts turned 

 upon rather a fine point as to lohat constituted evidence for the jury of a 

 scienter. The plaintiff, who was going on his lawful affairs, and wore a 

 red handkerchief, was attacked and severely injured by a bull which was 

 passing with cows of the defendant's along the highway. After the 



