UNLICENSED AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS. 145 



But where one kept for the protection of his family a dog 

 duly hcensed and collared, and confined so as not to endanger 

 persons properly on his premises, he may recover its market 

 value as a watch dog from, one who killed it there without 

 being attacked by it, although it was a dangerous animal and 

 accustomed to bite those who came near it.^*® 



A dog that is mad may certainly be killed by any one.^** 

 So, it was held, may one that has been lately bitten by a mad 

 dog, though the court said : "We do not mean to say that this 

 would be allowed as a justification in killing more useful and 

 less dangerous animals, as hogs, etc." ^*^ 



The inhabitant of a dwelling-house may lawfully kill an- 

 other's dog that is in the habit of haunting his house by day 

 and night, and, by barking and howling, of disturbing the 

 peace of the inmates, if the dog cannot otherwise be pre- 

 vented from annoying him, — though a wanton destruction of 

 the animal may not be justified.^*^ And in an action for kill- 

 ing a dog, where there was evidence that a number of dogs 

 disturbed the defendant by barking and howling on his lawn 

 every night and that he at last shot among them without tak- 

 ing aim, it was held that he had a right to protect his family 

 from such a nuisance and that it was a question for the jury 

 whether he used such means as were reasonable and neces- 

 sary, under the circumstances, to rid himself of it.^*^ 



cruel, and fully justified the defendant in killing the dog as a nuisance. 

 The public safety demands this rule." So in Maxwell v. Palmerton, 21 

 Wend. 407, it is said: "If the dog be in fact ferocious, at large, and a 

 terror to the neighborhood, the public should be justified in dispatching 

 him at once." And see Dunlap v. Snyder, 17 Barb. 561; Peo. v. Bd. of 

 Police, 24 How. Pr. 481. 



See also Sentell v. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 166 U. S. 698, cited in 

 § 22, supra. 



'™ Uhlein v. Cromack, 109 Mass. 273. 



"" Keck V. Halstead, 2 Lutw. 1494. 



'" Putnam v. Payne, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 312. 



'" Brill V. Flagler, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 354. And see Meneley v. Carson, 

 SS 111. App. 74. Cf. Bowers v. Horen, 93 Mich. 420, cited in § 45, supra. 



"' Hubbard v. Preston, 90 Mich. 221. 

 10 



