THE DOG AND THE LAW. 
another statute of the same reign, viz. 
Iz 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 penalty for every day, and also that 
any person aiding, encouraging, assisting, or 
baiting any such animals, was lable to a 
fine of £5 for each offence. This statute 
imposed a similar penalty on anyone found 
guilty of any cruelty to any animal. 
Priviieges of It is popularly, but rather 
First Bite. erroneously, supposed that 
every 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 “fere natura,’ as 
naturally disposed to be vicious, but as 
“ mansucte nature,’ 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 
every 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 hiability for any 
damage suffered. Once a dog, however, has 
displayed dangerous propensities, even 
though he has never had the satisfaction of 
Do7 
effecting an actual bite, and once his owner 
or the person who harbours him (McKane v. 
Wood, 5 Car. and P.I.) becomes aware of 
these evil inclinations (scienter) either of 
his own 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 evidence,” said 
Erle, C.J., (Worth v. Gilling, L.R. 2, C.P. 1) 
“that the dog has ever bitten anyone, it is 
proved that he uniformly made every 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 neccessarily 
be given directly to the owner, 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 
Ist, 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 owner’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. 
