144 INJURING AND KILLING ANIMALS. 



It was said in a Vermont case : "Some animals are common 

 nuisances if suiTered to go at large, from their known and uni- 

 form instincts and propensities, such as lions and bears, and 

 probably wolves and wild-cats; . . . and domestic animals 

 from their ferocious and dangerous habits becoming known 

 to their keepers thus become common nuisances if not re- 

 strained. But such an animal is quite as obviously within the 

 general definition of a common nuisance as a wolf or a wild- 

 cat or a bear and, if allowed to go at large, as really deserves 

 to be destroyed.^^^ 



And in a North Carolina case it was said that "a dog may 

 be of such ferocious disposition or predatory habits as to ren- 

 der him a nuisance to the community, and such a dog, if per- 

 mitted to go at large, may be destroyed by any person." ^^^ 

 But in a later case in the same State it is said : "No authority 

 is cited for this dictum. It is certainly erroneous in assuming 

 that any person other than one specially incommoded or 

 aggrieved may abate a common nuisance : 3 Bl. Com. 5 ; and 

 we imagine that dogs of the kind referred to that behave so 

 badly as to become outlaws have rarely existed except 'mad 

 dogs.' " 136 



There are, however, cases that seem to support the dictum 

 in Dodson v. Mock. Thus it has been held that a large and 

 furious dog accustomed to bite mankind is a common nuis- 

 ance and in an action to recover damages for killing him the* 

 defendant need not prove that he was obliged to do so in 

 self-defence.i^^ This is certainly the rule in New York.^^^ 



"■* Brown v. Carpenter, 26 Vt. 638, 643. 



''' Dodson V. Mock, 4 Dev. & B. L. (N. C.) 146, 148. 



''° Morse v. Nixon, 6 Jones L. (N. C.) 293, 295. And see Perry v. 

 Phipps, 10 Ired. L. (N. C.) 259; Morris v. Nugent, 7 C. & P. 572, cited 

 in § 43, supra. 



"'Brown v. Carpenter, 26 Vt. 638, where tlie English cases are re- 

 viewed. 



"'See Putnam v. Payne, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 312, where it is said: "The 

 dog was, generally, a dangerous and unruly animal, and his owner knew 

 it; yet he permitted him to run at large, or kept him so negligently that 

 he escaped from his confinement. Such negligence was wanton and ' 



