WHEN ANIMALS ARE "RUNNING AT LARGE." 295 



scienter is evidence of negligence, it need not otherwise be 

 shown in such cases, as lias already been said.-'®^ 



Cattle which escape or are released from an enclosure 

 where the owner has put them, and are immediately searched 

 for by him are not "running at large." ^®* Where such es- 

 cape is without any fault of the owner, he is not liable."* It 

 is otherwise where he is negligent. "If the swine are at large 

 through the negligence of the owner or his servants, or are 

 permitted to continue at large after notice of their escape 

 from his enclosure, it will be sufifering them to run at large, 

 within the true intent and meaning of the statute. But if the 

 owner exercises ordinary care and diligence in restraining 

 them, and they are at large against his will and without any 

 fault in him^ they are not subject to be impounded." "^ 



Cattle ranging in pastures containing about 400,000 acres 

 may be levied upon as "running at large," although the en- 

 trances are guarded.^®** "Stock running at large are animals 



turns his cattle loose in the highway without a keeper, in violation of a 

 statute, assumes all the risks of such action. 



The owner of hogs letting them run in the highway without a keeper is- 

 responsible for an injury to the plaintiff's daughter from the fright of her 

 horse thereat: Jewett zi. Gage, 55 Me. 538. 



"" See § 76, supra. See also Baldwin v. Ensign, 49 Conn. 113; Baird v^ 

 Vaughn, 3 Tenn. Cas. 316; Goodman v. Gay, 15 Pa. St. 188. 



"° McBride v. Hicklin, 124 Ind. 499; Stephenson v. Ferguson, 4 Ind. 

 App. 230; Wolf I". Nicholson, i id. 222; Kinder v. Gillespie, 63 111. 88. 



"" Rutter V. Henry, 46 O. St. 272; Rudi v. Lang, i O. C. D. 482; Mont- 

 gomery V. Breed, 34 Wis. 649 — where the penalty was imposed on one 

 who "permits or suffers" his animal to run at large; Underwood v. Hen- 

 derson, I Fraser (Sc. Ct. Justic.) 9. 



But an animal is "running at large" in the sense of an impounding stat- 

 ute, though it has escaped from an enclosure without the owner's fault ;• 

 Paris V. Hale (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. Rep. 333. But see McSloy v. 

 Smith, 26 Ont. 508; Adams v. Nichols, infra. 



"° Adams v. Nichols, i Aik. (Vt.) 316, 319. And see Gilbert v. Stephens 

 (Okla.), 55 Pac. Rep. 1070. 



A bull left by agreement on premises to which it had escaped was held 

 to be "running at large in the night-time,'' so as to make the owner liable- 

 for an injury done by it: Duggan v. Hansen, 43 Neb. 277. 



"° Gunter v. Cobb, 82 Tex. 598. 



