126 INJURING AND KILLING ANIMALS. 



damage with the intent to destroy grass for the food of beasts, 

 but the conviction was held wrong as the statute did not apply 

 to damage which was only nominal and not done with intent 

 to damage.^^ 



The mere act of shooting a dog, though tortious, is not 

 the proximate cause of an injury to one in delicate health, 

 whose fright produces a serious illness.** But where the de- 

 fendant, knowing himself to be a poor shot, mahciously shot 

 at and wounded the plaintiff's dog that was lying peaceably 

 near the latter's house, and the dog rushed into the house and 

 ran against the plaintiff, knocking her down and injuring her, 

 it was held that the defendant was liable, since his acts were 

 the proximate cause of the injury, without an intervening 

 force, and that it was immaterial whether the injury was or 

 could have been foreseen.*^ 



Where a sheep-wash sold by defendant to a farmer and used 

 according to the former's directions killed the sheep, they 

 dying from the absorption of arsenic contained in it, although 

 there was evidence that the same wash had been sold and used 

 with impunity for many years, the jury were directed that they 

 might find for the plaintiff, which they did, and their verdict 

 was sustained.*® 



But where seed-crushers sold their refuse oil-cake to graz- 

 iers without describing it or selling it as fit for cattle food or 

 knowing that it was bought for that purpose, they were held 

 not liable on an implied warranty that it was so fit.*^ 



=' Eley V. Lytle, 50 J. P. 308. 



"* Renner v. Canfield, 36 Minn. 90. 



"'' Isham V. Dow (Vt.), 41 Atl. Rep. 585. 



" Black V. Elliot, i F. & F. 595. 



So where poison had been spilled on cow's food, if the seller knew of 

 it, though he used every effort to remove it: French v. Vining, 102 Mass. 

 132. 



" Jackson v. Harrison, 2 F. & F. 782. So where bran, not manufactured 

 especially for the plaintifif, contained copper clasps that killed a cow, it 

 was held that the seller was not liable without express warranty, as the 

 rule as to food sold for human use did not apply: Lukens v. Freiund, 

 2J Kan. 664. 



