136 INJURING AND KILLING ANIMALS. 



Where a dog destroys plants by lying on them this is "mis- 

 chief" that will by statute justify killing it, and the defendant 

 need not compare its value with that of the plants.^* But 

 where a dog wandered from the highway and approached an 

 uninclosed lily pond presumably to slake his thirst, the fact 

 that it would, in the opinion of the land-owner, injure the 

 plants, was held not to justify killing it, though such own^r 

 had been subjected to the same annoyance from other dogs.^' 

 So a man was held not justified in killing his neighbor's valu- 

 able dog of which he had never complained merely because 

 it barked around his horse in the night, chased cats into trees, 

 left tracks on the painted porch and had been seen in the hpn- 

 house.*® And in Rhode Island it was held that the voluntary 

 killing of a dog is not justified by the fact that it was trespass- 

 ing and had previously injured property or that the shooting 

 was done merely with the intention of scaring it off the 

 premises.®^ 



Where a bufifalo bull, a wild and vicious animal, breaks into 

 a close, the owner of the close may kill him, if necessary to 

 preserve his property from destruction, though the close may 

 not have a lawful fence. ^* 



Where the defendant kept notices painted on boards out- 

 side of a wood that steel-traps, spring-guns and dog-spikes 

 were set in that wood, and the plaintifif's dog chased a hare 

 into the wood and was killed by the iron spikes, the judges 

 were equally divided as to whether damages could be recov- 



" Simmonds v. Holmes, 6i Conn. i. Cf. Tyner v. Cory, s Ind. 216, 

 where a plea that the dog was injuring a wheat field of defendant's father 

 and was killed because he could not otherwise be prevented from doing 

 injury was held bad. 



'°Ten Hopen v. Walker, 96 Mich. 236. And see Sosat v. State, 2- Ind. 

 App. 586. 



"" Bowers v. Horen, 93 Mich. 420. And see Trenholm v. Mills, 4 Leg. 

 News (Can.) 79. Cf. Brill v. Flagler, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 354, cited in 

 § 46, infra. 



"'Harris v. Eaton (R. I.), 37 Atl. Rep. 308. And see Decker v. Hol- 

 gate (Pa.), s Lack. Leg. N. 56. 



"' Canefox v. Crenshaw, 24 Mo. 199. 



