LIABILITY OF OWNER OR KEEPER. 411 



the Married Wonien's Property Act which was hardly con- 

 templated. This liabiUty, if it exists, is not confined tO' mar- 

 ried women, but must be one that is common to all persons 

 who permit wild animals to be brought upon their premises : 

 e. g., an inn-keeper who takes in a strolling tramp and his 

 dancing bear would appear under this decision to be respon- 

 sible not only for any injury the bear might do while on his 

 premises, but also for any injury it may do off his premises, 

 should it break loose in the night. This is, as we have said, 

 an extension of the law of liability for damages occasioned by 

 wild animals beyond any previous decision ; and it is worthy 

 of consideration whether the principle which is laid down in 

 this case is a sound one, and a legitimate development of 

 the previous decisions on the subject. . . . When Lord Ten- 

 terden spoke of keeping a dog about one's premises, he can 

 hardly be intended to imply that the liability depends on the 

 question of the actual ovmership of the land on which the ani- 

 mal is harbored. He must be understood in the colloquial 

 and not the strictly legal sense, i. e., the premises on which a 

 man lives or carries on his business, though they may, in no 

 strictly legal sense, be his. It could hardly be supposed that 

 if a man leases land from another for the purpose of keeping 

 a menagerie that he thereby imposes on his landlord a liabil- 

 ity for any damage which his wild animals may do by escaping 

 from the demised premises. . . . But does the case of a hus- 

 band living with his wife upon her premises stand in any 

 different position? Are not the wife's premises for the pur- 

 pose of keeping anything he may choose to bring upon them 

 to be deemed the husband's premises? Can he be said to be in 

 any different position than a tenant at sufferance? He is 

 there lawfully by the consent of the owner and, being there, he 

 brings upon the premises a wild animal ; if he were in sole pos- 

 session, his wife could hardly be held responsible because she 

 happened to be the rightful owner of the property, and it is 

 somewhat difficult to see why a more extended liabiUty can 

 arise merely from the fact that she happens to be also living 



