628 LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 



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 animal was trespassing. 



The defendants' horse having injured the plaintiff's mare by biting 

 and kicking her through the fence separating the plaintiff's land from 

 the defendants' . Held that there was a trespass by the act of the de- 

 fendants' horse for which the defendants were liable, apart from any 

 question of negligence on their part. (Ellis v. Loftus Iron Co., 44 L. J. 

 C. P. 24.) 



And if a horse, through the neglect of the owner in not keeping the 

 fence properly repaired, strays out and injures a horse on an adjoining 

 farm, the owner is liable. (Lee v. Riley, 18 C. B. N. S. 722.) 



But where a horse straying on a highway, without apparent reason, 

 kicked a child, it was held, independently of any question of negligence 

 on the owner's part, that in the absence of any proof of knowledge of a 

 vicious disposition, the latter was not liable. (Cox v. Burbidge, 13 C. 

 B. N. S. 430.) 



The liability for injuries occasioned by a vicious animal extends to the 

 case of a married woman who permits her husband to harbor such an 

 animal upon the premises owned and occupied by her, she having knowl- 

 edge that it was being kept there. (Shaw v. McCreary, 19 O. R. 39.) 



The owner of a vicious horse is not held liable to a servant employed 

 to drive it with notice of its vice who is injured by a kick from the horse. 

 (Yamouth v. Frame, 19 Q. B. D. 647.) 



INCREASE OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 



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

 of the dam or mother. (Broom's Commentaries on the laws of England. 

 Vol. 2, p. 587. Lewis' Edition of Blackstone, 391.) 



An interesting case is given in the New Brunswick law reports which 

 decides that a mortgagee under a mortgage upon live stock is entitled 

 to the increase of stock, and a purchaser of the increase takes it sub- 

 ject to the mortgage. 



