150 INJURING AND KILLING ANIMALS. 



shop counter to destroy rats and mice, and a customer came 

 into the shop with his dog which went to the cheese through 

 an unfenced opening at the end of the counter, ate it and died, 

 it was held that the confectioner was not liable for the dog's 

 death, the poison being placed there for a legitimate pur- 

 pose, and the dog being a trespasser.^ ^^ 



Where the owner of a horse knew that a fence which it was 

 the adjoining owner's duty to repair was down in places, he 

 was held guilty of contributory negligence where his horse 

 went into the adjoining land and was killed by falling into a 

 pit.^** And where the owner of a mare permitted her to feed 

 in the same field with a bull by which she was gored, he was 

 held guilty of contributory negligence.^*^ So, where the 

 plaintiff had reason to believe that thedefendant had cut holes 

 in the ice and warned his servant not to let his cattle go unat- 

 tended, and, the servant disregarding this, the cattle watered 

 in the holes and fell in — this was held contributory negli- 

 gence on the part of the plaintifif.^®^ 



But, in Vermont, the owner of cattle was held not guilty 

 of contributory negligence where the division fence was not 

 repaired, and under the statute his knowledge could not be 

 shown.^^^ And, in Missouri, where the owner turned his 

 horse into a pasture after he had known for a month of the 

 existence of a hole caused by improper mining and the horse 

 fell in and was killed, the owner was held not as a matter of 

 law guilty of contributory negligence. "There may have 

 been many circumstances or facts connected with the act of 



'■^ Stansfield v. Boiling, 34 J. P. 406. 



"" Krum V. Anthony, 115 Pa. St. 431. So, where two agreed to pasture 

 their stock together, and the animal of one fell into an unguarded well 

 on the other's land: McGill v. Compton, 66 111. 327. But a statute making 

 one who fails to maintain his part of a division fence liable to damages 

 to "crops, fruit trees and shrubbery thereon, and fixtures," does not au- 

 thorize a recovery for the loss of a colt straying through a defective fence 

 and killed by falling into a pit: Crandall v. Eldridge, 46 Hun (N. Y.) 411. 



"° Carpenter v. Latta, 29 Kan. 591. 



"° La Riviere v. Pemberton, 46 Minn. S- 



"' Eddy V. Kinney, 60 Vt. 554. 



