FEROCIOUS AKD VICIOUS ANIMALS. 



335 



is dangerous, the Court may make an order in a summary 

 way directing the dog to be kept by the owner under proper 

 control or destroyed, and any person failing to comply with 

 such order shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty 

 shillings for every day during which he fails to comply with 

 such order. It is not necessary to show knowledge by the 

 owner that a dog is dangerous in order to support a com- 

 plaint under this section (/). The Court may order a 

 dangerous dog to be destroyed, without giving the owner the 

 option of keeping it under proper control (g). Whether a dog 

 is under control or not is a question of fact, not of law (h) . By 

 sect. 3, power is given to the local authority to make, and 

 when made vary or revoke an order placing restrictions upon 

 dogs being at large, if danger from mad dogs is appre- 

 hended («'). In the absence of any special provision for the 

 mode of publication of such an order it is enough to show 

 that such an order has been posted up in five or six places 

 within a borough (A-). 



By sect. 22 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 The Diseases 

 & 58 Vict. c. 57), (xxx) and (xxxi), the Board of Agricul- ActTM! 

 ture may make such orders as they think fit, subject and 

 according to the provisions of the Act, for prescribing and 

 regulating the muzzling of dogs, and the keeping of dogs 

 under control ; and for prescribing and regulating the 

 seizure, detention, and disposal (including slaughter), of 

 stray dogs and dogs not muzzled, and of dogs not kept 

 under control, and the recovery from the owners of the 

 dogs of the expense incurred in respect of their detention. 



Where a horse which had strayed upon a highway Straying 

 without apparent reason kicked a child, it was held, 

 independently of any question of negligence on the part 

 of the owner, that in the absence of any proof of knowledge 

 of a vicious disposition, the latter was not liable (/) ; the 

 apparent reason for this decision being, that it is not in 

 accordance with the ordinary nature of horses to kick 

 human beings. 



But where, through the defect of a gate which the 

 defendant was bound to repair, the defendant's horse 



horse kicking 

 a child. 



Trespassing 

 horse injuring 

 another horse. 



(/) Fm-ker v. Jfalsh, 1 Times 

 L. E. 583. 



(17) Fickerinff v. Marsh, 43 L. J., 

 M. C. 143 ; 22 "W. E. 798. 



{h) Wren v. Pococl!, 34 L. T., 

 N. S. 697 ; Ex p. Say, 3 Times 

 L. E. 24. 



(j) As to proof of ownership under 



this section, see Wren v. Toeoclt, 34 

 L. T., N. S. 697. 



(h) B. v. Huntingdon //., 4 

 Q. B. D. 522. 



[I) Cox^. BurUdge, 17 C. B., N. S. 

 245; 32L.J., C. P. 89; 11 "W. E. 

 435. See also Miehaely . Alestree, X 

 Vent. 295. 



