414 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. 



their owners jointly liable. This would be giving them a 

 power of agency which no animal was ever supposed to 

 possess." ^*^ 



And where a statute provided that every owner or keeper 

 of a dog should "forfeit to any person injured by such dog 

 double the amount of damages sustained by him," it WcLS held 

 that each owner was liable only for the damage done by his 

 own dog and not for the whole damage done by two dogs.^*^ 

 But where the statute made the owner of a dog injuring sheep 

 liable for "all damages so- done," he was held liable for all 

 damages in the doing of which the dog took part with other 

 dogs, and it was held to be no defence that one of the dogs 

 so engaged belonged to the sheep-owner.^** And, by statute, 

 the owner of a dog that injures or kills sheep is often made 

 liable for the entire amount of damage done with other 

 dogs.^®^ With regard to criminal liability it was said in Rex 

 V. Huggins :^*® "If through negligence the beast goes abroad 

 after warning or notice of his condition, it is the opinion of 

 Hale that it is manslaughter in the owner. And if he did pur- 

 posely let him loose and wander abroad, with a design to do 

 mischief, nay, though it were but with a design to fright peo- 

 ple and make sport, and he kills a man, it is murder in the 

 owner." 



97. Action; Pleading; Damages — Where damage is com- 

 mitted by an animal in its owner's absence, the regular remedy 



"^ Russell V. Tomlinson, 2 Conn. 206. 



But see Rowe v. Bird, 48 Vt. 578, where it is said: "It is elementary and 

 a familiar rule in actions of tort that each or all are liable for a joint tres- 

 pass." See, also, Murray v. Brown, 19 Sc. L. Repr. 253, where it was held 

 that each of the owners of dogs which had worried sheep was liable for 

 the whole damage on the ordinary rule applicable to joint delinquents. 



"° Buddington v. Shearer, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 477. 



'** Worcester Co. v. Ashworth, 160 Mass. 186. 



"' McAdams v. Sutton, 24 O. St. 333; Kerr v. O'Connor, 63 Pa. St. 341; 

 Remele v. Donahue, 54 Vt. 555. 



™2Ld. Raym. 1574, 1583. 



