406 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMAI^S. 



One may take somebody else's dog to keep. For instance, 

 a man may be from home and temporarily or permanently 

 have his dog cared for in another family; and whoever has 

 him under these circumstances is the keeper of the animal.""" 



An innkeeper is, in England, deemed to be the owner of a 

 dog living in his hotel and is liable for injuries to cattle caused 

 by it, notwithstanding the dog was at the time under the 

 control of a person staying at the hotel, to whose care it had 

 been committed by the real owner."^ 



The law as to liability has thus been laid down in the 

 Journal of Jurisprudence: "It seems to us that the liability of 

 the original owner depends upon whether the animal has 

 passed beyond his control or not, and that is a question of 

 fact. If it has passed beyond his control, it does not matter 

 whether the custodier is trustworthy or not ; and, if it has not, 

 the trustworthiness of the custodier ... is not a defence. 

 The owner must take the responsibility of the custody and 

 precautions being efifectual. Tt is a nice question' says Mr. 

 Shearman (§ 197) 'to determine how far the notice which 

 the legal owner of an animal has of its habits is to be imputed 

 to other persons having it in charge and standing in the posi- 

 tion of the owner in respect to third persons. Against one 

 who unlawfully takes an animal the case is clear. Having 

 unlawfully assumed the position of an owner under circum- 

 stances which by his own fault prevented him from knowing 

 the nature of the animal, he should bear all the burdens and be 

 charged with the knowledge or notice chargeable to the real 

 owner.' This last case is clear enough; but as regards the 

 case of a borrower, it is only his actual knowledge that should 

 make him liable. On the principle that knowledge is re- 

 quired to make one liable for the acts of the animal, how can 

 it be contended that he is liable when in point of fact he had 



"° Burnham v. Strother, supra. In Kentucky it was held that the owner 

 of a dog is liable for injuries inflicted by it, while under the control of a 

 kennel club: Bush v. Wathen (Ky.), 47 S. W. Rep. 599. 



'" Gardner v. Hart, 44 W. R. 527. 



