NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. ■ 383 



that it cottld move along the portion of the premises to be 

 protected, but was secured from reaching anyone coming to 

 the house by any of the approaches provided for that pur- 

 pose.** Where bees had been kept in a certain place for 

 eight years and had done no injury, this rebutted the idea of 

 the defendant's knowledge that it would be dangerous to keep 

 them there.*^ 



In the Roman law also it was forbidden to have certain ani- 

 mals where there is a thoroughfare, under penalty of double 

 damages.*® 



With regard to liability to trespassers, it has been held in 

 England that one bitten by a dog, in consequence of being 

 himself without right on the owner's land, cannot recover 

 for the injury.*'^ The law is thus stated in the Irish Law 

 Times : "While, if a dog is known to be vicious, its owner 

 is under an obligation to keep it in proper restraint yet knowl- 

 edge that it is a vicious dog does not impose an obligation on 

 the owner's friends and acquaintances to stay away from his 

 premises, and they are merely bound to exercise a reasonable 

 amount of precaution. The owner is excepted from liability 

 where the person injured was a trespasser, or where the dog 

 was kept in the owner's own premises during the night to pro- 

 tect them. . . . But on the other hand, it is no ground of 

 defence that the dog was kept in premises during the day if 

 it was kept in such a position that it could attack a person 

 who calls at the premises on lawful business, whether of the 

 owner or of the visitor." *^ 



" Woodbridge v. Marks, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 139. 



" Earl V. Van Alstine, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 630, the court saying, "The law 

 looks with more favor upon the keeping of animals that are useful to 

 man than such as are purely noxious and useless. And the keeping of 

 the one, although in more rare instances they may do injury, will be tol- 

 erated and encouraged, while there is nothing to excuse the keeping of 

 the other." 



" See Salkowski's Rom. Priv. Law § 137. 



"Sarch v. Blackburn, 4 C. & P. 297. Though, if no suspicion is 

 thrown upon the plaintiflf, he will be presumed to be rightly there: Ibid. 



°°2i Ir. L. T. 53, citing Brock v. Copeland, i Esp. 203; Sarch v. Black- 



