124 INJURING AND KILLING ANIMALS. 



from such act, and such as ought to have been foreseen by the 

 defendant as Hkely to flow from his act." ^® 



So where the defendant neghgently placed a barrel of brine 

 on a public street, by drinking of which a cow was killed, he 

 was held liable to the owner though the brine was poured into 

 the street by a third person, if the latter act was " a natural ■ 

 and probable consequence of the negligent act." ^* 



The unlawful confinement of another's cattle does not 

 make one liable for an injury caused by the malicious act of a 

 third person, not connected with the confinement.^^ But 

 where the defendant, an innkeeper, contracted for the use of 

 his stable for the plaintiff's horses and they were driven there- 

 from by a third person to whom the defendant, in breach of 

 his contract, let the stable, and some of them caught cold 

 from the exposure, which reduced their market value, this 

 damage was held the probable consequence of the breach of 

 contract and not too remote to entitle the plaintifif to re- 

 cover.-" 



In an article referring to the decision in Firth v. BowHng 

 Iron Co.,^^ where the defendants were held liable for the death 

 of a cow, caused by swallowing a piece of wire-strand, it is 

 said : "Suppose that the neghgence would not have led to the 

 injurious result without something altogether odd and ex- 

 ceptional on the part of the animal, how then? It seems to 

 us that the question whether the damage in Firth v. Bowling 

 Iron Co. was recoverable depends on the question whether, 

 as a matter of experience, cattle grazing would ordinarily be 

 likely to swallow pieces of wire lying in the grass. If such an 



-" Christy v. Hughes, 24 Mo. App. 275. 



'* Henry v. Dennis, 93 Ind. 452. See Hess v. Lupton, 7 O. 216, cited in 

 § 47, infra. 



"° Booth V. Sanford, 52 Conn. 481. 



'"McMahon v. Field, 7 Q. B. D. 591. 



Where an injunction prevented the erection of a stable and the plain- 

 tifif's cows thereby suffered from exposure and their milk was diminished, 

 it was held that he could recover: Lange v. Wagner, 52 Md. 310. 



'' 3 C. P. D. 254. cited in § 47, infra. 



