LACK OF CAUTION IN TKIiSON BITTEN. 165 



Curtis V. Mills was a miicli stronger case than either of the above. 

 The defeudant, who kept a fierce dog so tied up that he cotfld still 

 reach anyone going from the yard gates to the stable, was being assisted 

 by the plaintiff to carry some planks he had purchased from his master, 

 a wood-merchant, down the yard. The dog took no notice of his 

 master as he passed, but severely bit the plaintiff" who followed him. 

 It was in evidence that on other occasions the plaintiff!' had been 

 warned not to go near the dog, though never on the day of the acci- 

 dent ; but there was no evidence that the dog had ever bitten a person 

 before. Tindal C.J. held that under these circumstances the plaintiff 

 was entitled to recover, if the jury thought that he did not, as it were, 

 run himself into the mischief hy his own carelessness and want of caution; 

 and the plaintiff had a verdict for £20. 



Read v. King was a case of dogs, described " as ferocious and mis- 

 chievous " in the declaration, attackinrj a mare of the plaintiff's as he 

 was driving her in a phaeton. On passing the defendant's house four 

 little wire-haired Skye terriers rushed out and attacked the mare by 

 barking and snapping at her heels. The animal, according to the 

 plaintiff's account, bore it very well for some time, but at last she 

 took fright, and after plunging and kicking, whilst the plaintiff tried 

 to control her and to drive away her assailants, she fell down and was 

 severely injured. The veterinary surgeon's bill was £7, the repairs to 

 the phaeton cost £13, and eventually the animal was sold at Aldridge's 

 for £33, and plaintiff" now sought compensation for loss and damages. 

 The defence was that the dogs were perfectly mild and harmless ; one 

 being totally blind, while in another the senses of seeing and hearing 

 were considerably impaired. A host of witnesses, amongst whom was 

 a police constable who had known the dogs for several years, were 

 examined as to character ; and some of them who had witnessed the 

 occurrence, attributed the damage sustained by the plaintiff to the fact 

 that he had endeavoured to whip the first dog, which barked as the 

 vehicle passed by. The defendant also swore that he did not know 

 they were in the habit of attacking horses. 



Bramwell B., in summing up, said the jury should find for the plain- 

 tiff if they considered the dogs were mischievous, and that the defendant 

 knew it, and that the mischief resulted therefrom. If they were of 

 opinion that they had a mischievous tendency, and the defendant did 

 not know it, or that if they had and he did know it and the mischief 

 was brought about by some act of the plaintiff", then they must find for 

 the defendant. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiflF, damages 

 £53 10s. ; but a rule to set aside the verdict on the ground of misdirec- 

 tion, improper reception of evidence, and that the verdict \Yas against 



