GENEKAL LIAPILITY. 121 



A pei'son may justify trespass in following a fox with 

 hounds over the grounds of another if he does no more than 

 is necessary to kill the fox.^^ One who wilfully kills a dog is 

 liable in trespass to the owner for its value. ^^ Where the in- 

 jury is done by a servant not acting within the scope of his 

 employment the master is not liable. "Employment as a 

 gamekeeper does not imply authority to shoot dogs, or do 

 any other illegal act." ^* A person who finds a horse and uses 

 and injures it is liable to the owner for the injury. "One who 

 finds any species of personal property is under no obligation to 

 take care of it. . . . The same rule applies to a lost animal ; 

 but if the finder takes possession of such animal and shuts 

 him up he would be bound to provide necessary sustenance 

 for it. And if he goes further and uses such animal in a way 

 that injures him, there can be no doubt that he is bound to 

 make compensation for the injury." ^^ 



The principles suggested in the above cases will be found 

 more fully developed in the following sections. 



42. Proximate Cause and Probable Consequence — To make the 

 defendant liable his act must have been the proximate cause 

 of the injury or the latter must have been a natural and prob- 

 able consequence of the negligent or wilful act. This rule 

 applies to all case of injuries to animals. The following cases 

 are examples of its application. 



The owner of a pasture bound to maintain a division fence 

 was held not liable for the death of a colt, belonging to the 



" Gundry v. FeltHam, i Term 334. And see the opinion of Doderidge, 

 J., in Millen v. Fandrye, Poph. 161, 162. See Tit. I, Ch. I, supra, and 

 § 130, infra. 



"Wheatley v. Harris, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 468; Jacquay v. Hartzell, i Ind. 

 App. soo. 



" Wardrope v. Duke of Hamilton, 3 Rettie (Sc. Ct. Sess.) 876. 



'° Murgoo V. Cogswell, i E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 359. See on this sub- 

 ject § 40, supra. Where a horse distrained for a tax is injured and the 

 collector explains the circumstances, the burden of proof is on the owner: 

 Buswell V. Fuller, 89 Me. 600. 



