LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 



625 



Adjoining owners and occupants of lands are each required to main- 

 tain their portion of the division fence, and where injuries are occasioned 

 by domestic animals escaping through defects in that portion of the fence 

 that the complaining party was under obligation to maintain, he cannot 

 recover for such injury. Indeed, he maybe liable for injuries which may 

 have resulted to the animals thus escaping, if shown to be the proximate 

 result of his negligence. 



Where there is no division fence, each owner or occupant must keep 

 his animals upon his own side of the line. Where there is a division 

 fence, and it is divided, each adjoining owner must see to it that his part 

 of the fence is suitably maintained. Where there is no division of the 

 line fence, and either party refuses to make a division, then the law of 

 Ontario provides a summary method for a compulsory division of the 

 fence, and, when thus divided, the parties may be compelled to build and 

 maintain it. 



THE KEEPING OF DOGS 



Perhaps there is no species of domestic animals in relation to which 

 controversies more frequently arise than in relation to dogs. The fol- 

 lowing propositions may be regarded as settled by the courts : — 



An owner of lands may drive off trespassing animals with dogs, and 

 will not be liable unless they are vicious and unnecessarily bite and lacer- 

 ate animals. 



One keeping a vicious dog with knowledge of its propensities is re- 

 sponsible for injuries done by it. Negligence, in the ordinary sense, is 

 not an element of the cause of action. Nor is contributory negligence a 

 defense. To constitute a defense it must be established that the injured 

 person brought the injury on himself. 



A person who keeps upon his premises ferocious dogs, and is aware of 

 their dangerous and vicious propensities, is liable for injuries to a 

 licensee even though they had never before bitten anyone. And a tres- 

 passer is not without rights. (Stiles v. Cardiff, 33 L. J. 310, 4 Bing. 



628.) 



A servant may maintain an action against the master for injuries re- 

 ceived from his employer's dogs, though informed of the dog's vicious 

 disposition, where it had been the custom to tell the servant when the 

 dog was loose, for the servant assumes, on entering such employment, 

 only the risk consequent upon keeping such a dog, which is fastened except 



