LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 585 



With reference to the acts of other vicious animals, the following 

 propositions may be regarded as settled by the courts: 



One letting a vicious horse to hire is bound to inform the hirer of its 

 vices. 



In the absence of proof that the animal alleged to be vicious had 

 done mischief similar to that complained of, or was by habit or nature 

 of an ungovernable temper, or that the defendants had knowledge or 

 notice that the animal was unruly, or had done similar acts, the owner 

 is not liable, unless the vicious act occurred while the anmial was tres- 

 passing. (Moynehan v. Wheeler, 117 N. Y. 285.) 



In an action for personal injuries to plaintiff, caused by his being 

 attacked by defendant's bull which was trespassing on plaintiff's land, 

 the trial judge declined to charge that, if the animal was trespassing 

 on the land of the plaintiff, and while there trespassing did damage to 

 him, then, whether he was a vicious animal, or known to be so to the 

 defendant or not, the plaintiff is entitled to recover for the injury. 

 Held, that such refusal was error. (Malone v. Knowlton, 39 St. 

 Reporter, 901.) 



A vicious domestic animal, if permitted to run at large, is a nuisance, 

 and a person who knowingly keeps or harbors it, and thus affords it a 

 place of refuge and protection, is liable for the maintenance of a 

 nuisance, and for the damages directly resulting from it. (Quilty v. 

 Battle, 13s N. Y. 201.) 



This liability extends to the case of a married woman who permits 

 her husband to harbor a vicious dog upon the premises owned by her, 

 and octupied by her family, she having knowledge of its vicious pro- 

 pensities. (Id.) 



So the owner of a vicious horse held liable to a servant employed to 

 drive it, without notice of its vice, who is injured by a kick from the 

 horse. (Helmke v. Stetler, 69 Hun, 107.) 



INCREASE OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 



Of all tame and domestic animals, the brood belongs to the owner 

 of the dam or mother. (Stewart v. Wallace, 33 Missouri, 154; Han- 

 zen V. Millet, 55 Me. 184; Hazelbacker v. Goodfell, 64 111. 238.) 



But where a dam or mother is hired out for a limited time, the 

 increase belongs to the hirer, who, by hiring, becomes the temporary 

 owner of the animal. (Putnam v. Wyley, 8 Johns. 432; Concklin v. 

 Havens, 12 Johns. 314.) 



