OBLIGATION AS TO VICIOUS ANIMALS. 163 



replied it would suit liim all the better, as he was troubled by people 

 fishing in his meadow. In reply to an observation that he would not 

 surely turn the bull into the meadow without giving notice to the 

 l^ublic, he replied, '^ Let kim give notice himself." 



Best C.J. remarked in strong terms on the " gross and wicked con- 

 duct," of the defendant, and said that if the plaintiff had died it would 

 have been " an aggravated species of manslaughter." It was contended 

 for the defendant, that the plaintiff had acted imprudently in attacking 

 the bull, whereas, he ought to have permitted him to go near the cow, 

 and that hence the plaintiff was not injured by the vice of the bull as 

 charged in the declaration. Of such vice it was also urged, that the 

 sight of the strap and chain was sufficient notice to the public. His 

 lordship advised the jury to give considerable damages, and they 

 assessed them at £105. Hence the owner of a vicious animat, after 

 notice that he has done an injury, is lyouml to secure Myn at all events, and 

 is liable in damages to a party subsequently injured if the mode he has 

 adopted to secure it proves insufficient. As to prospective damages see 

 Hodsoll V. Stallehrass. There Littledale J. said : " You may show an 

 injury of a permanent nature beyond the time at which the action is 

 brought ; as in the case of a policy of insurance and other like instances. 

 Then, can prospective damages be given ? It appears to me that they 

 may; for this arises from one injury: if they arose from various injuries 

 that would be different. The case of Malachg y. Soper (3 N. C. 371) 

 has been referred to, but that is not an authority to bind the present 

 case. It is from the consequence of one unlawful act. You cannot 

 have a fresh action unless there is a fresh unlawful act done, and fresh 

 damages also sustained as resulting from that act." 



The right of any one to recover, who is injured hy an animal on 

 ground ivhcre he is entitled to he going ahout his lawful husiness, was 

 upheld by Tindal C.J. in Sarch v. BlacMurn. The plaintiff was a 

 Avatchman ; and the dog wliich bit him was tied to his kennel by a four- 

 yard chain near a piggery and chicken-house and a cowshed, and just 

 under a board which said in three-inch letters — " Beware of the 

 Dog." There were three entrances to the house and premises, one of 

 them, more public than the rest, having a spring gate ; another, called 

 the middle entrance, across a field ; and a third, where the dog was, an 

 entrance across the cow-yard, and through a private gate and another 

 yard to the house. One of the plain tiff"s witnesses said that he had 

 been bitten three years before, as he was passing through a private way 

 to the premises, and that the defendant had rubbed his leg with brandy. 

 He added that the family only used that way, but he had been there 

 before with defendant's son. 



M 2 



