SCIENTER. 393 



cised in respect to confining him, but in the fact that he- is 

 ferocious and that the owner knows it, and proof that he is 

 of a savage and ferocious nature is equivalent to express no- 

 tice." " 



So, where a watch-dog was kept chained on account of its 

 ferocity but broke the chain and bit a person who was passing 

 the house, it was held that the owner in keeping a dog that 

 he knew to be ferocious must take all the risk of doing so, 

 and therefore the fact that he took reasonable precaution to 

 restrain it which ultimately by unforeseen accident turned out 

 insuiificient, did not protect him from liability for the injuries 

 sustained.®* 



The same rule was applied to the case of a stallion, after 

 notice of its propensity to attack mankind.** 



It is questionable, however, whether a rule that is appli- 

 cable to the keeping of wild and comparatively useless animals 

 like lions, tigers and bears should be extended to the case of 

 animals whose very ferocity may be the ground of their use- 

 fulness, if the owner has taken every reasonable precaution to 

 confine them and prevent injury.*" Otherwise, the only con- 

 clusion would be that it is the legal duty of the owner of an 

 animal that is unfriendly to strangers, however attached to 

 him, to kill it, though its services may be very valuable and 

 though he is able and willing to use every means to guard 



" Muller V. McKesson, 73 N. Y. 195. 



And see Lynch v. McNally, Ibid. 347. 



" Burton v. Moorhead, 18 Sc. L. Repr. 640. 



"Hammond v. Melton, 42 111. App. 186. So of a bull or cow: i Hale 

 P. C. 430, quoted in § 92, supra. 



" See the dissenting opinion of Crockett, J., in Laverone v. Mangianti, 

 41 Cal. 138, where it is said, "I think the more reasonable rule is an- 

 nounced in Sarch v. Blackburn ... to the effect that every one has a right 

 to keep a watch dog for the protection of his premises and is only respon- 

 sible for injuries resulting from negligence in the keeping. ... If the 

 earlier cases establish a different rule, the interests of society demand that 

 it should now be abrogated, considering the various useful purposes For 

 which such animals are now employed." 



