INJURIES TO TRESPASSING ANIMALS. 139 



ure them on the commons of incorporated towns this, though 

 it be dangerous and reprehensible, does not take away his 

 right to recover compensation from those injuring them.^"^ 



With regard to driving away trespassing animals it is said : 

 "If J. S. chase the beast of J. N. with a Httle dog out of land 

 in the possesion of J. S., an action of trespass does not lie, in- 

 asmuch as J. S. has an election to do this or to distrain the 

 beast. But if J. S. chase the beast of J. N. with a mastiff dog 

 out of land in the possession of J. S., and any hurt be done 

 thereby to the beast, this action does lie, the chasing with 

 such a dog being unlawful." ^'^^ And it has been accordingly 

 held that a person who chases a horse out of his field with a 

 fierce dog is liable for any resulting injury.^"* But there is 

 nothing illegal in driving cattle off of one's premises with a 

 dog if no unnecessary injury is done.^"^ "If a master set on 

 his dog to chase sheep out of his land, and the dog pursue 

 them into another's land, and the master recall his dog again 

 qitam cito vidisset, an action does not lie." ^"^ But where the 

 defendant's dog killed one of a number of trespassing sheep 

 that were being driven home by their owner, it was held that 

 the latter could recover though the sheep were trespassing on 

 the defendant's land and he had been warned several times 

 before by the defendant.^"'' 



The rule has been thus stated in a Connecticut case : 

 "There is no doubt that if A. is trespassing on the land of B., 

 the latter when present by himself or his servants may, 



"" Chic, St. L. & N. O. R. Co. V. Jones, 59 Miss. 465. 



"" Bac. Abr., Trespass, E. 



'"' Amick V. O'Hara, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 258. 



And see Richardson v. Carr, i Harr. (Del.) 142; Totten v. Cole, 33 

 Mo. 138. 



""Spray v. Ammerman, 66 III. 309; Clark v. Adams, 18 Vt. 425; Davis 

 V. Campbell, 23 id. 236. "Unless," as was said in Wood v. La Rue, 9 

 Mich. 158, "there was something in the size, character or habits of the 

 dog, or in the mode of setting him on or pursuing, which would nega- 

 tive the idea of ordinary care or prudence." 



"* I Com. Dig. 419, citing Latch. 119. 



'" Grange v. Silcock, 77 L. T. N. S. 340. 



