622 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



the natural and probable consequence of his action would 

 be the animal's going on the track.^^* A distinction has 

 been made in such cases between letting at large mules, 

 which are liable to stroll off, and cattle which are less Hable 

 to do so.^''^ 



The meaning of the expression "running at large" in stat- 

 utes making the owners of animals liable for their trespasses 

 has been already discussed.^^* In addition to the cases cited, 

 some further ones, dealing with the question of contributory 

 negligence only, will be considered here. In the following 

 instances the animals have been held to be "running at 

 large" : where a horse has escaped control, although it has 

 on a halter and bridle ;^'^^ where a team harnessed to a 

 wagon escaped control; ^^® where a sucking colt strayed 

 away from a mare led by the plaintiff ;^'^^ where a herdsman 

 in following one of the herd which has strayed gets so far 

 from the main body that he is unable to prevent their loitering 

 or stopping at a highway crossing when he sees a train ap- 

 proaching; ^^^ where cattle roam on a highway without re- 

 straint, though on the owner's premises;*®^ where a boy 

 drove cattle across a track without noticing that a steer was 

 left behind ; ^®^ where mules had escaped from a stable at 

 night in an unknown manner.^^^ And where the plaintifif's 

 son, as it was getting dark, was taking three horses along a 

 road that crossed a railway, riding one, leading another, and 



™ Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Beam, 60 111. App. 68. 



™ See Macon & W. R. Co. v. Baber, 42 Ga. 300, and Cent. R. & Bkg. 

 Co. V. Davis, 19 id. 437. 



"" See § 7T, supra. 



"' Welsh V. Chic, Burlington & Q. R. Co., 53 la. 632. 



=" Inman v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 60 la. 459. 



=" Smith V. Kan. City., St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 58 la. 622. And see 

 Southern Kansas R. Co. v. McKay (Tex. Civ. App.), 47 S. W. Rep. 479, 

 as to cows returning to their sucking calves over a track. 



''° Thompson v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 22 Ont. App. 453. 



^' Johnson v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 43 Minn. 207. 



"•^ Valleau v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 73 la. 723. 



"" Molair v. Port Royal & A. R. Co., 29 S. C. 152. 



