THE DOG AND THE LAW. 



557 



another statute of the same reign, viz. 

 12 and 13 Vict., c. 92, enacted that the 

 keeping or assisting to keep, or the using 

 or acting in management of places for 

 fighting or baiting of any bull, bear, badger, 

 dog, cock, or other animal, was subject to 

 a £5 penal t}' for every day, and also that 

 anv person aiding, encouraging, assisting, or 

 baiting any such animals, was liable to a 

 fine of £5 for each offence. This statute 

 imposed a similar penalty on anyone foimd 

 guiltv of anv cruelty to an\- animal. 



Privileges of It is popularly, but rather 

 First Bite, erroneously, supposed that 

 ei'ery dog is entitled to one bite. Perhaps 

 it would be more accurate to state that 

 every dog may with impunity have one 

 snap or one intended bite, but only dogs 

 of hitherto irreproachable character are 

 permitted the honour of a genuine tasteful 

 bite. The law quite correctly classes dogs, 

 not among animals " fera naturce," as 

 naturally disposed to be vicious, but as 

 " mansuetcv naturce," which means by nature 

 peaceable. 



The late Mr. Justice Wright once held 

 that the fact that certain dogs were by 

 nature of a fierce breed was evidence to go 

 to the jury that their owner of necessity 

 knew they were dangerous. This is a 

 dictum that would not be accepted by dog 

 owners or anyone with practical knowledge 

 of several varieties of the dog, for it seems 

 impossible to say that any one breed is more 

 fierce by nature than another, inasmuch as 

 ever\- breed from the Mastiff to the lap dog 

 is bound to have a specimen or two who 

 will develop a more or less savage or 

 snappy nature. " Dog," said the late 

 Chief Justice Holt, " is not fierce by 

 nature, but rather the contrary." So 

 long, therefore, as a dog behaves himself, 

 and shows no tendency to attack human 

 beings, the owner is entitled to assume that 

 his dog is innocent of vice, and should the 

 dog suddenly bite a person, he is on this 

 first occasion under no liability for any 

 damage suffered. Once a dog, however, has 

 displayed dangerous propensities, even 

 though he has never had the satisfaction of 



effecting an actual bite, and once his owner 

 or the person who harbours liim (McKane v. 

 Wood, 5 Car. and P.I.) becomes aware of 

 these e\al inclinations (scienter) either of 

 his o%vn knowledge or by notice, the Law 

 looks upon such dog as a dangerous beast 

 which the owner keeps at his peril. 



" Although there is no e^^dence," said 

 Erie, C.J., (Worth v. GiUing, L.R. 2, C.P. i) 

 " that the dog has ever bitten anyone, it is 

 proved that he uniformly made ever}- effort 

 in his power to get at any stranger who 

 passed by, and was only restrained by his 

 chain. There is abundant evidence to 

 show that the defendants were aware of the 

 animal's ferocity ; and if so they are clearly 

 responsible for the damage the plaintiff has 

 sustained." 



The onus of proof is on the victim to 

 show that the owner had previous knowledge 

 of the animal's ferocity, though in reality 

 very little evidence of scienter is as a rule 

 required, and notice need not necessarily 

 be given directly to the o\vner, but may be 

 to his wife, or any servant, who has charge 

 of the dog. 



The person attacked has yet another 

 remedy. He can, if he is able, kill the dog 

 before it can bite him (Powell v. Knights, 

 26 W.R. 721), but he is not justified in 

 shooting the animal as it runs away, even 

 after being bitten (Morris v. Nugent, 7 C. 

 and P., 572). 



By 28 and 29 Vict., c. 60, the owner of 

 a dog which attacks sheep or cattle — and 

 cattle includes horses (Wright v. Pearson, 

 L.R. 4, Q.B. 582) — is responsible for all 

 damage, and there is no necessity to prove 

 previous evil propensities. This Act is 

 wholly repealed by the Act called the Dogs' 

 Act, 1906, which came into force on January 

 1st, 1907, but the new Act re-enacts the 

 section having reference to damage to cattle, 

 and says that in such cases it is not necessary 

 for the persons claiming damages to show a 

 previous mischievous propensity in the dog 

 or the owTier's knowledge of such previous 

 propensity or to show that the injury was 

 attributable to neglect on the part of the 

 owner, and it defines the word " cattle " to 

 include horses, asses, sheep, goats, and swine. 



