404 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. 



rig-hts and duties. Where the defendant was informed where 

 he bought a bull that it had been tied up for two years and was 

 advised to restrain it, proof of this was held sufficient to make 

 him liable without actual neg-ligence.^^* 



Where the plaintiff wearing a red handkerchief was at- 

 tacked by a bull driven along a public highway, the defend- 

 ant's statement that the color of the handkerchief had caused 

 the injury and that he knew bulls would run at red things 

 was held to be evidence of scienter of the animal's mischievous 

 propensity. "We think it was the duty of the defendant not 

 to suffer such an animal to be driven in the public streets, 

 possessing as he did the knowledge that, if it met a person 

 with a red garment, it was likely to run at and injure him." ^^* 



In an action to recover for injuries from a vicious horse, evi- 

 dence of its docile character after the accident was held not 

 admissible,^*" and such evidence would, in fact, prove noth- 

 ing. But, on the other hand, evidence of a stage-horse's mis- 

 behavior twenty months after the accident was held admissi- 

 ble.^*^ When a dog is shown to have bitten before, evidence 

 that at other times he did not bite is not admissible.^*^ 

 Where the others showed that their dogs the summer before 

 had gone among their sheep without molesting them, it is 

 competent for the plaintiffs to prove that sheep-killing dogs 

 are not accustomed to attack the sheep of their owners, but 

 that they go away to do it.^*^ 



'°" Rogers v. Rogers, 4 N. Y. St. Repr. 373. 



"' Hudson V. Roberts, 6 Ex. 697. And see Linnehan v. Sampson, 126 

 Mass. 506- 



'" Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. De Haas, 37 111. App. 195. 



'" Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U. S. 22, citing Todd v. Rowley, 8 Allen 

 (Mass.) 51, 58; Maggi v. Cutts, 123 Mass. S3S; Chamberlain v. Enfield, 

 43 N. H. 356. 



*" Linck V. Scheflfel, 32 III. App. 17. 



"° Dover v. Winchester (Vt.), 41 Atl. Rep. 445, where it was also held 

 that the fact that dogs killed sheep in one place in one way is no evidence 

 that they killed, in another place, sheep which appeared to have been 

 killed in the same way, as the two facts were not related in any way to one 

 another. 



