408 VICIOUS AND rEEOCIOUS ANIMALS. 



But where the dog belonged to a toll-keeper, it was held 

 that an action could not be brought against the owner of the 

 bridge, it appearing that he did not keep or harbor the dog 

 in person, nor authorize or require it to be kept nor need that 

 it should be kept for the conduct of his business.^ ^® And the 

 fact that a dog owned by the superintendent of the poor-farm 

 of a city is kept at the farm with the knowledge of one of the 

 overseers and, without his objecting thereto, is fed with food 

 furnished by the city for the use of the farm and during a 

 part of the time is allowed the run of the farm, does not as a 

 matter of law show that the city is the keeper of the dog and 

 liable for its injuring anyone ;^^^ nor are the directors of an 

 almshouse liable where a steward's dog, after his removal, is 

 left on the premises without their authority or acquies- 

 cence. ^^^ 



Where there was evidence tending to show that a dog was 

 kept about the stable of a horse-car company by a person em- 

 ployed by them to have charge of the same and with the 

 knowledge and implied assent of their superintendent, it was 

 held that the jury might properly find that the dog was kept 

 by the company.^^* And where a vicious animal was used 

 in the business of a theatrical company, it was held that the 

 president and manager who controlled the business and could 

 hire and discharge animals was responsible for injuries done 

 by it.i«» 



If the owner of the premises knows of the dangerous char- 

 acter of a dog owned by his agent and permits him to retain 

 it and let it run at large on the premises, the former is liable 



"' Baker z;.Kinsey, 38 Cal. 631. "" Collingill v. Haverhill, 128 Mass. 218. 



A municipal corporation is not liable for damages resulting from the 

 negligence of its officers in giving an employee a vicious and unsafe horse 

 to use: Backer v. West Chic. Park Commrs., 66 111. App. 507. 



'" Sproat V. Direc. of Poor, 145 Pa. St. 598. 



"" Barrett v. Maiden & M. R. Co., 3 Allen (Mass.) loi. 



"" Lawlor v. French, 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 497. This decision was reversed 

 in 2 N. Y. App. Div. 140, on the ground that the evidence was insufficient 

 to show knowledge of viciousness. 



