410 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. 



householder, supporting the family.^*^ And where a dog, 

 obtained to protect premises owned in part by the defendant's 

 wife, went to the defendant on the death of the other part- 

 owner, the defendant was held Hable as owner and harborer 

 for injuries caused by it.^^® 



The fact that a wife carries on a separate business on her 

 husband's premises does not make her, as a matter of law, 

 keeper of dogs there and liable for their biting.^®^ 



In a case in Canada, a bear belonging to one of the defend- 

 ants escaped from premises, the separate property of the wife, 

 the other defendant, where it had been confined by him with- 

 out her objecting thereto. It was held that, as she had a legal 

 right to have it removed and had not done so, she was liable 

 for an injury caused tO' the plaintiff.^®* This decision was 

 commented on in the Canada Law Journal as follows: "The 

 Divisional Court was of opinion that the fact that the wife 

 suffered the bear to remain upon her premises made her 

 equally responsible with the owner, her husband, for its safe 

 keeping. We believe that in this respect this case carries the 

 law beyond any previous decision that is tO' be found in the 

 books. The relationship of husband and wife would for- 

 merly have protected her from all liability and it certainly does 

 not now, even under the altered state of the law as to the 

 wife's capacity to hold property, impose on the wife any 

 greater liability than if she were a stranger to her husband. 

 She is held liable because the law has given her the same do- 

 minion over her separate property as she would have if a 

 feme sole, with all responsibilities which that dominion 

 entails; and one of those responsibilities the court has 

 determined to be the due keeping of any wild animals she 

 suffers to be brought upon her property. This is an efifect of 



"" Bundschuh v. Mayer, 8i Hun (N. Y.) in. And see Strouse v. Leipf, 

 loi Ala. 433. 

 "° Kessler v. Lockwood, 42 N. Y. St, Repr. 563. 

 "' McLaughlin v. Kemp, 152 Mass. 7. 

 '" Shaw V. McCreary, 19 Ont. 39. 



