382 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. 



pass. "It is negligence and want of ordinary care for a per- 

 son to keep a vicious bull or other dangerous animal inse- 

 curely fastened, upon his own premises at a place where other 

 persons are known to go, whether they have a right to go 

 there or not." ^^ So, one keeping a vicious dog must see that 

 it is secured so that a person going lawfully on his premises or 

 along the highway may not be injured.^* Otherwise, in Eng- 

 land, he is indictable for a misdemeanor.^" And where a dog 

 known to have attacked persons while guarding its master's 

 team was left unsecured and unmuzzled on the sidewalk near 

 the sleigh and a young child meddled with the whip and was 

 attacked, it was held that the master was liable and that the 

 child's act was not a defence.^^ So, where a dog was tied in 

 an alley easy of access by a chain six feet long, and a police- 

 man while pursuing a suspicious character was bitten, the 

 owner of the dog was held liable, the keeping being negli- 

 gent under the circumstances.^^ And it was held negligence 

 to chain a dog that was large and powerful and suspected of a 

 disposition to attack strangers, under a table in a cabin where 

 the libellant had been assigned to sleep and where he had a 

 right to go.^^ 



But it is not a nuisance to keep a vicious dog to guard one's 

 premises where it is cautiously used and sufficiently confined, 

 and this was held to be the case where the dog was so chained 



" Glidden v. Moore, 14 Neb. 84. And see Mahoney v. D^vyer, 84 Hun 

 (N. Y.) 348; Graham v. Payne, 122 Ind. 403. 



'"Sylvester v. Maag, 155 Pa. St. 225; Roehers v. Remhoff, 55 N. J. L. 

 475; Conway v. Grant, 88 Ga. 40; Wheeler v. Brant, 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 324; 

 McGuire v. Ringrose, 41 La. Ann. 1029; Shultz v. Griffith, 103 la. 150; 

 Miller v. Bourbonniere, Rap. Jud. Quebec, g C. S, 413; Smillie v. Boyd, 14 

 Rettie (Sc. Ct. Sess.) 150. 



As to dog owners' rights and liabilities, with especial reference to Scotch 

 law, see 3 Sc. L. T. 61, 65, 81, etc. 



"' Woolf V. Chalker, 31 Conn. 121, citing Burns' Justice, 578. 



"Meibus V. Dodge, 38 Wis. 300. See also as to a child's discretion, 

 Marsland v. Murray, 148 Mass. 91. 



" Melsheimer v. Sullivan, i Colo App. 22. 



" The Lord Derby, 17 Fed. Rep. 265. 



