EVIDENCE. 403 



dence is admissible that the fact of his savage disposition is 

 notorious in the neighborhood.^^® And the plaintiff may 

 show by a former owner that the dog was vicious though the 

 defendant had no knowledge of the acts testified to, where 

 there is other evidence of his knowledge of the animal's 

 viciousness.^^'* 



Proof that the defendant had warned a person to beware 

 of a dog is evidence of scienter ;'^^'' and so is a promise to 

 make compensation if the injury could be proved — though 

 entitled to little weight.^^^ In an earlier case it was held not 

 sufficient to show that the dog was of a savage disposition 

 and usually tied up and that the defendant promised pecuni- 

 ary satisfaction after biting, there being no proof of his having 

 before bitten any other person ;^^^ but this is certainly con- 

 trary to the weight of authority.^*® Evidence of the treat- 

 ment of the dog after the accident is admissible to show his 

 previous character.^^* Where by statute it is not necessary 

 to show scienter on the part of the owner of a dog biting a per- 

 son off of the owner's premises, the peaceable character of 

 the animal is not admissible in evidence. ^^^ 



Notice to a wife has been held sufficient to show scienter in a 

 husband,^^** though the converse has been denied. ^^'^ This 

 would depend, however, on the local law governing marital 



"' Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37. And see Broderick v. Higginson, 

 169 Mass. 482. 



"' Plummer v. Ricker (Vt.), 41 Atl. Rep. 1045. 



A witness cannot be permitted to testify to exclamations made by the 

 plaintiff while asleep, to the effect that "the dog was biting him," "take 

 him off," etc. . Ibid. 



'"Judge V. Cox, I Stark, 227. "' Thomas v. Morgan, 2 C, M. &. R. 496. 



"^ Beck V. Dyson, 4 Camp. 198. 



^ See 7 Am. L. Reg. 659, where this case is considered to have been 

 overruled by Thomas v. Morgan, supra. 



"'Webber v. Hoag, 8 N. Y. Suppt. 76. 



™ Kelly V. Alderson, 19 R. I. 544- 



"° Gladman v. Johnson, 36 L. J. C. P. 153. And see Barclay v. Hart- 

 man, 2 Marv. (Del.) 351. 



"' Miller v. Kimbray, 16 L. T. N. S. 360. 



