OTHER ATTACKING ANIMALS. 133 



the necessity of any defence, but of the reasonable necessity 

 of the particular defence made." ®' 



Cases have been already cited where no recovery was al- 

 lowed for the killing of a carrier pigeon and of a canary bird 

 by cats.'''' Where a hog had killed one chicken and at- 

 tempted to kill another, and, when seventy-fiiYe yards away 

 from where chickens usually ran, was killed, it was held error 

 to leave to the jury whether the hog was of a predatory char- 

 acter and to instruct them that if so, any one had a right to 

 destroy it as a public nuisance. The court said : "The po- 

 sition that such a hog is a public nuisance and may be killed 

 by any one is not supported on principle or authority, and if 

 recognized would lead to monstrous consequences. . . . 

 This^court is of opinion that the owner of the chickens, much 

 less a stranger, could not justify killing the hog, although it 

 afterwards comes upon his premises." They then proceeded 

 to quote Popham, J., in Wadhurst v. Damme,^^ that "The 

 common use of England is to kill dogs and cats in all warrens 

 as well as any vermin," and to distinguish between a dog — 

 "which is roving in his habits and no fence can stop it — it is 

 of no use, if constantly confined and its service is rather for 

 amusement than profit to man," and a hog — which "roves 

 but little, is easily restrained by fences ; confinement does not 

 destroy its usefulness, but is necessary in order to fatten and 

 make it fit for food, and it is one of the most valuable of do- 

 mesticated animals." ''^ On the other hand, where the owner 

 of an ass, which he knew had the habit of pursuing and in- 

 juring stock, permitted him to run at large and he attacked a 

 cow, threw her down and stamped on her, it was held that the 

 cow's owner was justified in killing the ass to save his prop- 

 erty.''^ 



*' Anderson v. Smith, 7 111. App. 354, 3S9- 



™Webb V. McFeat, 22 Jour. Jurisp. (Sc.) 669; McDonald v. Jodrey, 

 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 142, cited in § 41, supra. 

 '' Cro. Jac. 45. " Morse v. Nixon, 6 Jones L. (N. C.) 293. 

 '" Williams z'. Dixon, 65 N. C. 416. 



