294 ANIMALS TRESPASSING AND RUNNING AT LARGE. 



liable, the court saying : "While the French and our law 

 do not contain the special prohibition of the Roman law 

 [i. e., against dogs being on the streets at all], I have to hold 

 that with us a domestic animal like the dog brings his master 

 no special privileges of exemption and that he who owns one 

 lets him stray or even takes him upon a public highway at his 

 own peril and his own risk." ^®^ 



Sheep grazing upon an open common with the consent of 

 the land-owner and herded by a boy in charge are not "run- 

 ning at large" so as to be liable to be impounded.^®^ Nor 

 are cattle driven along a road in the charge of a herder, which 

 in passing casually eat the grass growing on the roadside, 

 even though the herder fall asleep while tending them.^** 

 "When cattle are in the public highway in charge of a person 

 directing or controlling their movements, they are not run- 

 ning at large within the meaning of the statute." ^^° And 

 the mere fact of an animal being found unattended in the 

 highway cannot be regarded as making the owner liable for 

 the consequences. "In order to constitute the being there of 

 such animals wrongful on the part of the owner, it should 

 appear that the circumstances and occasion or that the char- 

 acter and habits of the animal were such as to show careless- 

 ness on the part of such owner in reference to the convenience 

 and safety of travellers on such highway." ^^^ But though 



"' Vital V. Tetrault, Montr. L. Rep., 4 S. C. 204. 



A statement in a deposition that dogs were ''at large on the defendant's 

 premises'' is not sufficient evidence to show that they were running at 

 large or permitted to run at large: Reg. v. Crandall, 27 Ont. 63. 



'^ Ibbottson V. Henry, 8 Ont. 625. And see Spect v. Arnold, 52 Cal. 455- 



"° Thompson v. Corpstein, 52 Cal. 653. 



'°° Bertwhistle v. Goodrich, 53 Mich. 457. And see Beeson v. Tice, 17 

 Ind. App. 78. 



Nor are they "turned loose": Sherborn v. Wells, 3 B. & S. 784. But 

 they may be "found lying about any highway" so as to subject their owner 

 to a penalty: Lawrence v. King, L. R. 3 Q. B. 345. 



That there should be a keeper, see Parker v. Jones, i Allen (Mass.) 270. 



"' Holden v. Shattuck, 34 Vt. 336. 



See Shipley z'. Colclough, 81 Mich. 624, where it is held that one who 



