JSO LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 



dentally shot by another party who claimed to have shot at the fox, 

 but accidentally killed the dog, the owner was entitled to damages. 

 (Wright V. Clark, 50 Vermont, 130.) 



Where a hog trespassed on the premises of a neighbor of the owner 

 and injured his crops, and was pursued by the neighbor and his dog 

 and killed, the owner of the hog was held to be entitled to damages for 

 such killing. (Thompson v. State, 67 Ala. 106.) 



Where animals when trespassing are killed in a wanton, malicious 

 and deliberate way, exemplary damages may be recovered. 



Injuries inflicted upon animals by negligence entitles the owner to an 

 action for damages against the one who inflicts the injury, as, where 

 the owner of a quantity of hay spills some white lead paint upon it, and 

 tried to separate the damaged part, and thought he had succeeded, 

 when he sold the undamaged part without giving notice of the fact to 

 the purchaser whose cows died in consequence of eating thereof. 

 (French v. Vining, 102 Mass. 132.) 



Nor has a party the right to entice by food, voice or other means, 

 any domestic or reclaimed animal away from the possession of the 

 owner and bring it under his control. For such conduct the owner has 

 an action for the value of the animal so obtained, and the party com- 

 mitting the wrong may be prosecuted criminally for larceny. 



In many of the States the registered cattle brand is prima facie 

 proof of ownership, and, therefore, any wrongful marking or branding 

 of cattle with intent to defraud is a conversion of the cattle, and indict- 

 able. But the intent to defraud must be shown, and it is not sufficient 

 that the owner does not consent. 



The offense of altering a brand on cattle may be committed by 

 merely clipping the hair of the original brand. Putting a brand on an 

 animal additional to the one already on it is an alteration of the brand 

 first put on, although the latter brand may not interfere with or change 

 the form of the first one, and the owner will be entitled to an action. 

 An unlawful branding of a colt, the owner of which is unknown, is 

 indictable. 



For cases of changing brands or false marking, see DeGarca v. Gal- 

 vin, 55 Texas, 53; Allen v. State, 42 Texas, 517; Fossett v. State, 11 

 Texas, App. 40; and Morgan v. State, 13 Fla. 671. 



Hiring a horse to travel a certain distance, and driving the horse a 

 greater distance, or to another place than the one agreed upon is such 

 a conversion of the horse that an action will lie by the owner. 



