130 INJURING AND KILLING ANIMALS. 



common nuisance.^^ Under the California statute it has 

 been held that a dog killed for chasing sheep must be actually 

 doing the act when found and immediately followed up; he 

 cannot be killed to prevent his return.^^ A similar rule exists 

 in Iowa.°* And at the common law it was held that where 

 the owner of sheep shoots a dog in a field some distance off, 

 this is not justifiable.^'' So, in a Scotch case, when a master 

 issued a general order to destroy all dogs found on his 

 grounds and his servant accordingly killed two dogs that were 

 trespassing in one of the master's fields and near a valuable 

 flock of sheep, it was held that both the master and the serv- 

 ant were liable in damages. The Lord Chief Commissioner 

 said : "If a dog is known to be a sheep-killer and is found on 

 the property of a gentleman having sheep, I do not say it is 

 necessary to wait till he is near his prey, annoying or worrying 

 the sheep, before he is killed. But the case is very different 

 when this is not the character of the dog. It is always a ques- 

 tion of degree what entitles the person to prevent the appre- 

 hended injury." ^® 



But there are many statutory exceptions to this rule, es- 

 pecially in the case of sheep-killing dogs. Thus in Missouri 

 a dog that has killed or maimed a sheep or other domestic ani- 

 mal must be killed by the owner and may be killed by any one : 

 it is not necessary that he should be on the premises, or in the 

 act of killing, or that scienter on the part of his owner should 

 be shown.^'^ So also in Delaware.^* And in North Caro- 

 lina it was held that the owner of sheep is justified in killing a 



°' Spray v. Ammerman, 66 III. 309. 



"' Johnson v. McConnell, 80 Cal. 545. 



" Marshall v. Blackshire, supra. °= Wells v. Head, 4 C. & P. 568. 



''" Grant v. Barclay, S Murray (Sc.) 130. 



That a dog actually worrying sheep may be killed, see Turner v. 

 McLaren, 3 Sc. L. Rev. (Sher. Ct. Rep.) 57. 



" Carpenter v. Lippitt, 77 Mo. 242. 



That the right of property in dogs exists there and an action lies for 

 wounding a dog, see Woolsey v. Haas, 65 Mo. App. 198. But the killing 

 of a dog is not a criminal offense: State v. Mease. 69 id. 581. 



'■' Milman Z'. Shockley. I Houst. (Del.) 444. 



