162 FEROCIOUS BULL. 



sheep shot a dog which had been worrying them, after it had run two 

 JieMsfrom the spot, Alderson B. held, in an action by the owner of the 

 dog, that the defendant was not justified in shooting it, as it was not 

 shot in protection of his property, though the habits of the dog might 

 be considered in mitigation of damages {Wells v. Head). 



In Broclc \. Coj^eland, where the decLaration also stated that the de- 

 fendant knowingly kept a dog used to bite, Lord Kenjjon C.J. decided 

 that under the circumstances the action would not lie, and nonsuited 

 the plaintiff. The defendant's foreman (who was the plaintiff) had 

 gone into the wood-yard after it was shut at night ; and the dog, which 

 was very quiet and gentle, and tied up all day, was let out to guard the 

 premises, and had bitten him. His lordship considered that the dog 

 had been properly let loose, and the injury had arisen from the plain- 

 tiff's own fault in incautiously going into the defendant's yard after it 

 had been shut up. In a previous action (cited 1 Esp. 203) for keeping 

 a mischievous bull that had hurt the plaintiff as he was crossing a field 

 of the defendant's in which it was kept, the defendant's counsel con- 

 tended that the plaintiff having gone there of his own head, and having 

 received the injury from his own fault, an action could not lie. As, 

 however, it also appeared in evidence that there was a contest concerning 

 a right of way over this field, wherein the bull was kept, and that the. 

 defendant had permitted several persons to go over it as an open way, 

 his lordship ruled, and the Court of King's Bench concurred in opinion 

 Avith him, that the plaintiff having gone into the field, supposing that 

 lie had a right to go there, and the defendant liav in g permitted iier sons to 

 go there as over a legal icag, the defendant should not then be allowed 

 to set up in his defence the right of keeping such an animal there, as in 

 his own close, but that the action was maintainable. 



Blachnan v. Simmons (3 C- & P. 138) was a case of much more modern 

 date, and of tlie character of the one alluded to by his lordship. The 

 bull Avas kept on some marsh land near Tottenham, where the inha- 

 bitants at a certain season of the year had a right of common for cattle. 

 The plaintiff, who was a cowkeeper, and had cattle on the marsh, was 

 driving one of his cows to the bull at a neighbouring farm. There was 

 only a shallow ditch between the field and the marsh, which the 

 defendant's bull crossed and went to the cow. He was struck on the 

 head l^y the plaintiff, whose stick broke short, and the bull then threw 

 him down, and broke two of his ribs. The defendant had had notice 

 of his having run at a man previously, and at the time of the accident 

 a strap and chain were fastened round the bull's neck, but so loosely as 

 not to prevent liis running. It was proved that \\hen the defendant 

 bought the bull he was told that it was very mischievous, to which he 



