402 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. 



cause soit que I'animal fut sous sa garde, soit qu'il fut egare 

 ou echappe.' Here we have a broad, intelligible principle, 

 clearly expressed, which we ought to adopt from our neigh- 

 bors as speedily as may be, and rid ourselves of the anti- 

 quated barbarism and sophistry which make it necessary to 

 prove the scienter in these cases." ^^^ 



95. Evidence The defendant's knowledge of the vicious 



character of his animal may be proved in many ways. In 

 most cases it is made out by showing that he has seen or been 

 informed of previous attacks.^^^ The fact that he keeps a 

 dog tied or chained in the daytime is also evidence of scien- 

 tcr}^^ A report in the neighborhood that a dog had been 

 bitten by a mad dog has also been held to be evidence of scien- 

 ter,^^^ though it has been said that this case "cannot be sup- 

 ported on any good grounds, and may be considered of no au- 

 thority." ^^® It has been held proper, however, to show the 

 general reputation of a dog as vicious and dangerous for the 

 purpose of raising an inference that the owner knew of his 

 vicious propensities. ^^^ And where there is evidence that the 

 defendant knew of the dog's biting on other occasions, evi- 



'■"49 L. T. 181. And see similar views expressed in i Law Jour. 492; 

 10 Sol. Jour. 320; The Jurist, quoted in 11 Pitts. Leg. Jour. 180 and 10 

 U. C. L. J. 14. 



'=' 7 Am. L. Reg. 655. 



"* Montgomery v. Koester, 35 La. Ann. 1091 ; Goode v. Martin, 57 Md. 

 606; Brice v. Bauer, 108 N. Y. 428; Hahnke v. Friederich, 140 id. 224; 

 Warner v. Chamberlain, 7 Houst. (Del.) 18; Cotton v. Walpole, 34 Jour. 

 Jurisp. (Sc.) 155. 



The act of the jurors in going on the premises with one of the defend- 

 ants, who took hold of the chain which held the dog at the time of the 

 injury and stretched it to show how far it would reach, was held to be 

 misconduct as to entitle the plaintiff to a new trial : Wooldridge v. White 

 (Ky.), 48 S. W. Rep. 1081. 



"' Jones V. Perry, 2 Esp. 482. '" 7 Am. L. Reg. 659. 



^ Cameron v. Bryan, 89 la. 214; Trinity & S. R. Co. v. O'Brien (Tex. 

 Civ. App.), 46 S. W. Rep. 389; Friedmann v. McGowan (Del.), 42 Atl. 

 Rep. 723; Cuney v. Campbell (Minn.), 78 N. W. Rep. 878. 



But see Norris v. Warner, 59 111. App. 300. 



