FEROCIOUS AND VICIOUS ANIMALS. 



337 



Where the plaintiff was digging a well in a garden adjoin- 

 ing that of the defendant, and the defendant's dog jumped 

 over the wall separating the two gardens, and fell down the 

 well and injured the plaintiff ; it was held that, as the dog 

 was not shown to be mischievous to the knowledge of the 

 owner, the plaintiff had no cause of action either for 

 trespass or breach of duty (t). 



In Card v. Case (m), Maule, J., is reported to have said 

 that it might be that an allegation of negligence, coupled 

 with consequent damage to the plaintiff, would show a 

 cause of action ; and this view appears to have been 

 adopted by the Court in Jones v. Owen (x), where it was 

 held that the finding by an arbitrator that the defendant 

 had been guUty of negligence in allowing his two grey- 

 hounds, coupled together, to be at large on a highway, with 

 the result that they rushed against and severely injured the 

 plaintiff, was good in law although there was no evidence of 

 scienter ; Willes, J., saying that it was not a case in which 

 the Court had to deal with the acts of dogs by themselves, 

 as the cause of the accident was partly the act of the 

 master and partly that of the dogs. 



Where a servant breaking an ungovernable pair of horses 

 in Lincoln's Inn Fields, ran over and hurt a man, it was 

 held that no scienter was necessary, as a place so fre- 

 quented by the public was an improper place for horse- 

 breaking (y). 



But where a bull made mad, from having been " cut or 

 hoxed," escaped through the defendant's negligence, and 

 tossed, gored and wounded the plaintiff, and a verdict was 

 found for him, the judgment was arrested, because there 

 was no scienter alleged in the declaration (s). 



And where a bull passing along a highway, seeing the 

 plaintiff with a red handkerchief, ran at and gored him, the 

 decision turned upon the question, whether or not the 

 owner of the bull knew that he had a tendency to run at 

 any person wearing red (a). 



So, too, in a case in which a ram, which is an animal 

 known to be mischievous at certain seasons, butted and 

 injured the plaintiff's wife in the street, the Court of 

 Exchequer held that the owner of the animal was not liable 



Negligence 

 without proof 

 of scienter. 



Breaking 

 horses in a 

 public place. 



"Where a mad 

 bull wounds 

 a person. 



Where a bull 

 singled out a 

 person wearing 

 red. 



Where a ram 

 injured a 

 person. 



[t) Sanders v. Teape, 51 L. T., 

 N. S. 263 ; 48 J. P. 757. 

 (u) 5 C. B. at p. 634. 

 L) 24 L. T., N. S. 587. 

 (i/) Michael v. Alestree, 2 Lev. 



O. 



172; S. C, 1 Vent. 29,5. 



(z) Sayntine v. Sharp, 1 Lutw. 

 90. 



{«) Hudson V. Roherta, 6 Ex. 697. 



