164 INJURING AND KILLING ANIMALS. 



held that the plaintiff may not recover what the horse would 

 have made for hire from the time of the injury to its death f^"^ 

 otherwise, where the animal is only temporarily disabled from 

 service; in the latter case reasonable hire may be recovered.^** 

 Where a mare is killed, her value may be recovered, but, with- 

 out alleging injuries to her sucking colt, evidence thereof is 

 inadmissible.*^* And where mares are caused to slink their 

 foals, the measure of damages is the reduced value of the ani- 

 mals, not the value of the unborn colt.**' If the injury is 

 accompanied by circumstances of aggravation, exemplary 

 damages are sometimes allowed, even if the animal has no 

 pecuniary value.**® One suing for the killing and wound- 

 ing of his cows may recover for the loss of milk from the 

 wounded cows while they were recovering but not for the 

 anguish of his wife by reason of her fear of the defendant.**^ 



Where stock were killed by a tornado the measure of dam- 

 ages under an insurance poHcy was held to be ascertained by 

 showing their value immediately before and after the injury 

 and not what they were sold for a considerable time after- 

 wards.*** 



Where a statute gave selectmen the power to estimate dam- 

 ages for the killing of sheep by a dog, it was held to render 

 such estimate binding and, in the absence of fraud or mis- 

 take, not to allow any recovery in excess thereof.*** 



In a New York case it was held that the opinions of wit- 

 nesses as to the value of a dog were admissible.**" But in a 



'■' Atlanta Cotton-Seed Oil Mills v. Coffey, 80 Ga. 145 



'" Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. v. Hudson, 62 Ga. 679. 



^' Gamble v. Mullin, 74 la. 99. 



^" Baker v. Mims, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 413. 



""Parker v. Mise, 27 Ala. 480; Ten Hopen v. Walker, 96 Mich. 236; 

 Lewis V. Bulkley, 4 Daly (N. Y.) 156. 



'" Donahoo v. Scott (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. Rep. 385. 



^' Lewis V. Burlington Ins. Co., 80 la. 259. 



^ Van Hoosear v. Town of Wilton, 62 Conn. 106, distinguishing Town 

 of Wilton V. Town of Weston, 48 Conn. 325. 



"" Brill V. Flagler, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 354. See, in general, as to evi- 

 dence of a dog's value, 40 L. R. A. 518 n. 



