DOGS ATTACKING PERSONS OR ANIMALS. 129 



in an enclosure.''^ And where the chasing and shooting are 

 all one and the same transaction the dog may not have been 

 actually chasing the deer at the moment he was shot."*" So 

 a dog killed, as allowed by statute, because he is "worrying" 

 chickens need not be in the act at the very instant he is shot, 

 provided his conduct could excite reasonable apprehension; 

 and "to worry" has been held to mean "to run after, to chase, 

 to bark at." *^ 



The general rule is that where a dog chases and bites an 

 animal, in order to justify killing him it must be shown that 

 the animals could not otherwise be separated.*^ Thusywhere ^ 

 a muzzled dog is attacked by another dog the latter may be 

 killed by the owner of the former if it is necessary to save him 

 from serious injury.*^ But reasonable cause to believe that 

 a dog was going to kill hens was held not a sufficient justifica- 

 tion for killing him, unless there were reasonable cause to 

 believe that this was necessary to prevent his killing the 

 hens.^" And to kill a dog simply because he is suspected of 

 having done injury upon the premises previously is a trespass : 

 no one but the master, as a rule, has the right to kill a dog.^^ 

 And the disposition of a dog to drive off stock trespassing on 

 his master's premises is not a vicious propensity which will 

 justify the owner of the stock in killing him, unless he is a 



tiff's dog incurred the penalty of death for running after a hare in an- 

 other's ground. And if there be any precedent of that sort which out- 

 rages all reason and sense, it is of no authority to govern other cases." 



" Janson v. Brown, i Camp. 41, and note. 



■" Protheroe v. Mathews, S C. & P. 581. 



" Marshall v. Blackshire, 44 la. 475. 



"Wright V. Ramscot, 1 Saund. 84; Hinckley v. Emerson, 4 Cow. 

 (N. Y.) 351. 



■" Boecker v. "LnXz, 13 Daly (N. Y.) 28, where it is said, "Acts of fero- 

 city done at any time may be shown, but they will not make out a defence 

 if it should appear that for a long time the dog had ceased to be dan- 

 gerous." 



'° Livermore v. Batchelder, 141 Mass. 179. And see Anderson v. Smith, 

 7 111. App. 354; Leonard v. Wilkins, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 233. 



"Brent v. Kimball, 60 111. 211. And see Gibbons v. Van Alstyne, 9 

 N. Y. Suppt. 156. 

 9 



