138 INJURING AND KILLING ANIMALS. 



members of his firm are liable if he does this in furtherance of 

 partnership business.^^ And one whose sheep have been 

 killed by dogs and who places poisoned meat on the premises 

 to kill trespassing dogs, is liable for killing a neighbor's dogs 

 which he had reason to believe came upon his land if they had 

 not been engaged in killing his sheep : otherwise, by statute, 

 if the sheep had been killed by them.®^ It has been held that 

 trespass vi et armis is the proper remedy where a dog is killed 

 by the direct administration of poison as where it is thrown 

 down to him mixed with food, but that where the poison is 

 placed where the dog is sure to pass along, case is the proper 

 remedy.^'' 



A notice of an intent to kill hens when next found tres- 

 passing is only a threat to do an illegal act and is no defence 

 to an action for killing them.*® So, a notice that dogs tres- 

 passing on land will be shot, does not justify the shooting.** 

 On the other hand, where an occupier of land sown with seed 

 shot domestic fowls trespassing after a previous warning that 

 he would shoot them unless they were kept off his land, it was 

 held that he could not be convicted of unlawfully killing 

 them.i"" 



The expression "go and kill him if you want to," made in 

 May by the owner of an animal while having a heated conver- 

 sation with one who complained of a trespass and threatened 

 to kill it, was held not to be a license to such person to kill the 

 animal in the following September.^"! 



Where the owner of domestic animals has a right to past- 



"^ Dudley v. Love, 60 Mo. App. 420. 



" Gillum V. Sisson, 53 Mo. App. 516. 



'" Dodson V. Mock, 4 Dev. & B. L. (N. C.) 146. 



'" Clark V. Keliher, 107 Mass. 406. 



°° Corner v. Champneys, 2 Marsh. 584; Harris v. Eaton (R. I.), 37 Atl. 

 Rep. 308. 



'°° Smith V. Williams, 56 J. P. 840. And see as to pigeons, Taylor v. 

 Newman, 4 B. & S. 89, cited in § 41, supra. Cf. Johnson v. Patterson, 

 supra. 

 "' Ulery v. Jones, 81 III. 403. 



