560 
drive the deer back into their own park 
bat chased them far into it, whereupon the 
park owner shot them, one and all, and he 
was held justified in so doing. The poisoning 
of trespassing dogs is prohibited by 27 and 
28 Vict., c. 115, whereby every person who 
places or causes to be placed in or upon any 
lands (except in a dwelling house or enclosed 
garden for the purpose of destroying vermin) 
any poisoned flesh or meat is liable on 
summary conviction to a fine of £10. 
It may be said in passing that as a general 
rule an owner is not liable for his dog’s 
damage unless done with his consent (Brown 
v. Giles, 1 C. and P. 119), or unless knowing 
its evil propensities he allows it to be at 
large (Read v. Edwards, 17 C.B., N.S. 245). 
An interesting case on this point is Grange v. 
Silcocks, 77 L.T. 340. In that case sheep 
belonging to the plaintiff were trespassing 
on the defendant’s property, and were 
attacked by the defendant’s dog, whom it 
was proved the defendant knew did not 
bear an irreproachable character. It was 
held that, notwithstanding the fact that the 
sheep were so trespassing, the plaintiff was 
entitled to recover on the ground that the 
defendant was responsible for the safe 
keeping of a dog which he knew to possess 
an evil nature. With regard to sheep and 
cattle, of course, since the passing of 28 
and 29 Vict. c. 60, mentioned above under 
“Privilege of First Bite,’’ this scienter or 
previous knowledge of a savage disposition 
is of no importance. The proper course for 
the land owner to pursue is to seize and 
impound (distress damage feasant) the dog 
which has done damage until its master 
has given redress (Bunch v. Kennington, 
I Q.B. 679), and if the distrainer demands 
an excessive sum, and the owner, to obtain 
the release of the dog, pays the amount 
under protest, he can subsequently recover 
the balance (Green v. Duckett, 52 L.J., 
Q. B. 435). 
This matter has already been 
referred to in the early part 
of this chapter, but it deserves perhaps 
a little further attention. We know that 
at Common Law dogs were not the subject 
Dog 
Stealing. 
THE NEW BOOK OF THE DOG. 
of larceny, one of the reasons being that, not 
being animals available for food, they were 
considered of no intrinsic value. Dogs, 
according to Chief Justice Eliot, were 
vermin, and ‘‘ for that reason the Church 
would not debase herself by taking tithes 
of them.” 
The Act, 10 Geo. III., c. 18, however, 
made dog stealing a statutable offence, the 
punishment for which was a fine of £20- 
£30, or imprisonment for not less than 12 
months, whereas a second offence meant a 
fine of £30-£50, or eighteen months’ im- 
prisonment, and in addition to these 
substantial punishments the offender had 
in both cases to be publicly whipped be- 
tween the hours of noon and one p.m., within 
three days of his conviction, after which he 
could appeal to Quarter Sessions. It seems 
that the legislature suddenly became aware 
of the wickedness of stealing a dog, and 
were determined, by somewhat drastic 
measures, to put a stop to a practice which 
had apparently become rather too prevalent. 
The Larceny Act of 1861 revised punish- 
mentsinflicted under the previous Act dealing 
with this subject, and made the punishment 
on summary conviction a fine of {20 or 
imprisonment for not more than six months, 
with or without hard labour, whereas to 
be in unlawful possession of a stolen dog or 
its skin is under it a misdemeanour triable 
at Quarter Sessions, and punishable by im- 
prisonment up to eighteen months, with or 
without hard labour, or by fine not exceeding 
£20. 
By section 102 of the same Act, whoso- 
ever shall publicly advertise rewards for the 
return of lost or stolen property, and shall 
use words purporting that no questions will 
be asked, or that the reward will be paid 
without seizing or making any inquiry after 
the person producing the property, shall 
forfeit £60 for each offence to any person 
who will sue for the same by action of debt. 
This is a rather extraordinary section, and 
it is perhaps important in these days to 
bear it in mind. It will be remembered 
that a short time ago an endeavour was 
made to enforce it against one of the papers 
dealing with dogs. Section ror of this Act 
