560 



THE NEW BOOK OF THE DOG. 



drive the deer back into their own park 

 but chased them far into it, whereupon the 

 park owner shot them, one and all, and he 

 was held j ustified in so doing. The poisoning 

 of trespassing dogs is prohibited by 27 and 

 28 Viet., c. 115, whereby every person who 

 places or causes to be placed in or upon any 

 lands (except in a dwelling house or enclosed 

 garden for the purpose of destroying vermin) 

 any poisoned flesh or meat is liable on 

 summary conviction to a fine of 10. 



It may be said in passing that as a general 

 rule an owner is not liable for his dog's 

 damage unless done with his consent (Brown 

 v. Giles, i C. and P. 119), or unless knowing 

 its evil propensities he allows it to be at 

 large (Read v. Edwards, 17 C.B., N.S. 245). 

 An interesting case on this point is Grange v. 

 Silcocks, 77 L.T. 340. In that case sheep 

 belonging to the plaintiff were trespassing 

 on the defendant's property, and were 

 attacked by the defendant's dog, whom it 

 was proved the defendant knew did not 

 bear an irreproachable character. It was 

 held that, notwithstanding the fact that the 

 sheep were so trespassing, the plaintiff was 

 entitled to recover on the ground that the 

 defendant was responsible for the safe 

 keeping of a dog which he knew to possess 

 an evil nature. With regard to sheep and 

 cattle, of course, since the passing of 28 

 and 29 Viet. c. 60, mentioned above under 

 " Privilege of First Bite," this scienter or 

 previous knowledge of a savage disposition 

 is of no importance. The proper course for 

 the land owner to pursue is to saize and 

 impound (distress damage feasant) the dog 

 which has done damage until its master 

 has given redress (Bunch v. Kennington, 

 i Q.B. 679), and if the distrainer demands 

 an excessive sum, and the owner, to obtain 

 the release of the dog, pays the amount 

 under protest, he can subsequently recover 

 the balance (Green v. Duckett, 52 L.J., 

 Q- B. 435)- 



Dog 

 Stealing. 



This matter has already been 

 referred to in the early part 

 of this chapter, but it deserves perhaps 

 a little further attention. We know that 

 at Common Law dogs were not the subject 



of larceny, one of the reasons being that, not 

 being animals available for food, they were 

 considered of no intrinsic value. Dogs, 

 according to Chief Justice Eliot, were 

 vermin, and " for that reason the Church 

 would not debase herself by taking tithes 

 of them." 



The Act, 10 Geo. III., c. 18, however, 

 made dog stealing a statutable offence, the 

 punishment for which was a fine of 20- 

 30, or imprisonment for not less than 12 

 months, whereas a second offence meant a 

 fine of 30-^50, or eighteen months' im- 

 prisonment, and in addition to these 

 substantial punishments the offender had 

 in both cases to be publicly whipped be- 

 tween the hours of noon and one p.m., within 

 three days of his conviction, after which he 

 could appeal to Quarter Sessions. It seems 

 that the legislature suddenly became aware 

 of the wickedness of stealing a dog, and 

 were determined, by somewhat drastic 

 measures, to put a stop to a practice which 

 had apparently become rather too prevalent. 



The Larceny Act of 1861 revised punish- 

 ments inflicted under the previous Act dealing 

 with this subject, and made the punishment 

 on summary conviction a fine of 20 or 

 imprisonment for not more than six months, 

 with or without hard labour, whereas to 

 be in unlawful possession of a stolen dog or 

 its skin is under it a misdemeanour triable 

 at Quarter Sessions, and punishable by im- 

 prisonment up to eighteen months, with or 

 without hard labour, or by fine not exceeding 

 20. 



By section 102 of the same Act, whoso- 

 ever shall publicly advertise rewards for the 

 return of lost or stolen property, and shall 

 use words purporting that no questions will 

 be asked, or that the reward will be paid 

 without seizing or making any inquiry after 

 the person producing the property, shall 

 forfeit 60 for each offence to any person 

 who will sue for the same by action of debt. 

 This is a rather extraordinary section, and 

 it is perhaps important in these days to 

 bear it in mind. It will be remembered 

 that a short time ago an endeavour was 

 made to enforce it against one of the papers 

 dealing with dogs. Section 101 of this Act 



