120 IXJUKIXG AND KILLING ANIMALS. 



bles SO as to be a nuisance to the neighbor, in order to 

 frighten the game away from the latter s land and prevent his 

 killing them or enticing others.^ The general liabilities 

 arising in consequence of the frightening of animals will be 

 dealt with under various heads.* 



A liability may arise from accident or negligence as well 

 as from intention. Thus the owner of a race track is hable in 

 damages for the collision of horses caused by his fault.® And 

 where a person under a mistake kills a dog for a wolf, he will 

 be liable though acting in good faith.' But where plain- 

 tiff's carrier pigeon was killed by defendant's cat without evi- 

 dence of culpa on the part of the defendant, both animals being 

 trespassers, the plaintiff could not recover.* So the owner of 

 a cat was held not liable to the owner of a canary bird killed by 

 it. the court considering that cats to some extent "may be 

 regarded as still undomesticated and their predatory habits 

 as but a remnant of their wild nature." ^ 



It was held at the common law that "if pigeons come upon 

 my land I may kill them, and the owner hath not any remedy ; 

 but the owner of the land is to take heed that he take them 

 not by any means prohibited by the statutes." ^^ And in a 

 later case where the defendant warned the plaintiff to cause 

 the latter's pigeons to be destroyed or prevent their injuring 

 his crops, and afterwards fired at them on his land, and when 

 they rose fired again and killed one, this was held not to be 

 "unlawful killing." " 



" Ibottson V. Peat, 3 H. & C. 644. 



* See Tit. III. Ch. Ill; Tit. IV, Ch. II: Tit. VII, infra. 



' North Manchester Tri-County Agric. Assn. v. Wilcox, 4 Ind. App. 141. 



' Ranson v. Kitner, 31 111. App. 241. So where a dog is accidentally 

 killed, in firing at a fox: Wright v. Clark. 50 Vt. 130. 



' Webb V. McFeat, 22 Jour. Jurisp. (Sc.) 669. 



" McDonald t'. Jodrey, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 142. 



'° Dewell V. Sanders, Cro. Jac. 492, per Doderidge, Croke and 

 Houghton, JJ. This was said to be the better opinion, though Mon- 

 tague, J., thought that on account of the animus revertendi an action lay. 

 See Tit. I, Ch. I, supra. 



" Taylor v. Newman, 4 B. & S. 89. 



