ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE, ETC. 619 



In Wisconsin, the contributory negligence of the owner 

 has been held to be a defence to his action, though the com- 

 pany has failed either to erect or maintain fences.^^* But 

 under the present statute the company is liable for injuries 

 caused to cattle by its failure to fence, where there is no evi- 

 dence that the owner drove them on the right of way or 

 abandoned them where they were certain to go on the 

 track.260 



In Canada, there is no responsibility on the part of the 

 company as to straying animals killed by trains.^'^^ 



It will be observed from these cases that, as a general rule, 

 where the owner of animals has taken every reasonable 

 means of securing them and, without his fault, they escape 

 and run at large and are killed by the company's negligence, 

 he will not be held guilty of contributory negligence so as 

 to bar recovery.^^^ To "suffer to be at large" implies per- 



■"" Curry v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 43 Wis. 665. And see Jones v. Sheboygan 

 & F. de L. R. Co., 42 id. 306; Lawrence v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. R. Co., 

 Ibid. 322; McCall v. Chamberlain, 13 id. 637; Galpin v. Chic. & N. R. 

 Co., 19 id. 604. 



But the contributory negUgence must be shown to have directly caused 

 the injury: Sika v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 21 id. 370. 



-™ Heller v. Abbot, n Wis. 409. 



'" Can. Pac. R. Co. v. Cross, Rap. Jud. Quebec, 3 B. R. 170. 



This case did not follow the decision in Pontiac Pac. June. R. Co. v. 

 Brady, Montr. L. Rep., 4 Q. B. 346, owing to a change made by sub- 

 sequent legislation. 



'"'Isbell V. N. Y. & N. H. R. Co., 27 Conn. 393; Louisville, N. A. & 

 C. R. Co. V. Ousler, 15 Ind. App. 290; Chic, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Nash, 

 I id. 298; Kan. Pac. R. Co. v. Wiggins, 24 Kan. 588; Hohl v. Chic, M. 

 & St. P. R. Co., 61 Minn. 321; Bowman v. Chic. & A. R. Co., 85 Mo. 533; 

 Bostwick V. Minneapolis & P. R. Co., 2 N. D. 440; Marietta & Cine. R. 

 Co. V. Stephenson, 24 O. St. 48 [see Sloan v. Hubbard, 34 id- S83] ;— 

 cited supra. 



See, also, to the same effect, Toledo, P. & W. R. Co. v. Johnston, 74 lU- 

 83; Dennis v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 116 Ind. 42; Ohio & M. R. 

 Co. V. Craycraft, S Ind. App. 335; Chic, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Fenn, 3 id. 

 250; Story V. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 79 la. 402; Monarty v. Cent. la. 

 R. Co., 64 id. 696; Pearson -v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 45 id. 497; Mo. 

 Pac. R. Co. V. Roads, 33 Kan. 640; Parker v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 



