SHOOTING DOG WHEN JUSTIFIABLE. 161 



liydropliobia on its return. His lordship thought it was not a case for 

 vindictive damajrcs. " Report having said the dog had been bitten by 

 a mad dog, it became the duty of the defendant to be very circumspect. 

 Whether the dog was mad or not was a matter of suspicion ; but it is 

 not sufficient to say, ' I did use a certain precaution.' He ought to use 

 such as would, put it out of the animal's poM'er to do hurt. Here, too, 

 the defendant showed a knowledge that the animal was fierce, unruly 

 and not safe to be permitted to go abroad, by the precaution he used to 

 tie him up. That precaution has not been sufficient ; for a want of it 

 the injury complained of has happened. I am clearly of opinion that 

 the plaintiff should recover." Damages £30. His lordship also ruled 

 in McKone v. Wood, an action against a party for keeping a dog also 

 accustomed to bite mankind, that it is not essential that the dog should 

 be his, if he liarhours or allows it to resort to his 2)remiscs. Here the dog 

 had bitten tw^o persons before the plaintiff ; and when a complaint had 

 been made, the defendant said that the dog (which was seen about the 

 premises both before and after the time when the plaintiff" was bitten) 

 belonged to a person who had been his servant and left him. 



In Ckirk v. Webster and Salt, Park J. ruled that the first special plea, 

 viz., that the dog was accustomed to attack and bite mankind, and that 

 the defendant and his gamekeeper shot him when he left his owner's 

 waggon, and ran into a field where they were shooting, in order to save 

 themselves, was not supported by evidence, which only went to show 

 that the dog had once been muzzled, had growled at people as they 

 passed along the road, and pushed down a man who was carrying a 

 pack. The plaintiff" had a verdict for £5, though his lordship animad- 

 verted severely on the fact of his calling seven witnesses to meet the 

 first special plea, by giving evidence as to the dog's quiet habits. The 

 second special plea was to the effect that the defendant and his game- 

 keeper shot it because it attacked their dogs, and to save the lives of 

 the latter, but nothing turned upon that. 



Lord Denman C.J. ruled that to justify shooting another person's 

 dog it is not sufficient to show that it was of a ferocious disposition and 

 was at large, but it must he actuathj attaclcimj the party at the time ; and 

 that therefore Avhere the plaintiff's dog ran at and bit the defendant's 

 gaiter as he was passing the house, and then ran away, and the defen- 

 dant shot him at the distance of five yards, he was not justified in doing 

 so (J/oms V. Nugent). It was also ruled by Lord Ellenloroiajli C.J. 

 that if defendant justify shooting a dog because it was worrying his 

 fowl, he must prove that ivhen he fired the dog ivas in the very ad, and 

 could not be prevented from effecting his purpose by any other means 

 {Janson v. Broini). And so where it was proved that the owner of 



