FEROCIOUS AND VICIOUS ANIMALS. 839 



day, been warned against going near the dog, if the jury 

 thinks that the injury was not occasioned by his own care- 

 lessness and want of caution (k). 



In an action for an injury by a vicious bull, the plaintiflF Injury 

 recovered, although it appeared that the bull was attracted o<"=asioiied 

 by a cow, the plaintiff was driving past the field in which tuU. ^"'"'■^ 

 the bull was, and that the plaintiif first struck the bull on 

 the head to drive him away from the cow (/). 



To justify a person in shooting a dog for worrying his Shooting 

 sheep, it is not necessary to prove that he was shot in the '^^"S^o^ 

 act; it having been held that it is sufficient if it appear sheep. " 

 that he has been accustomed to worry sheep, and that just 

 before he was shot he had been worrying sheep, and could 

 not have been otherwise restrained from further doing so (»?). 

 In that case the act of shooting would appear to have been 

 done in the protection of the defendant's property; but 

 where the owner of sheep which had been worried by a 

 dog, shot the dog in a field at some distance from that in 

 which his sheep had been worried, it was held that there 

 was no justification as the act was not done in the protection 

 of his property (w). 



It has, moreover, been held that a person cannot justify Shooting 

 shooting a dog worrying his fowls, unless it appear that a dog for 

 the dog was in the very act at the time, and could not JowlT^^ 

 otherwise be prevented (o). But it would seem that if the 

 transaction had taken place in the person's poultry-yard, it 

 would be enough to show that the dog teas pursuing the 

 fowl. Because when a dog is killed pursuing conies in a 

 warren, it is sufficient to state that the dog was pursuing 

 conies there, and it is not necessary to prove that the dog 

 could not otherwise be prevented killing them (p). 



The servant of the owner of an ancient deer park may Shooting 

 justify shooting a dog that is chasing the deer, although * '^°S fo^' 

 such shooting may not be absolutely necessary for the " ''*™° '^'^^' 

 preservation of the deer ; and notwithstanding that the 

 dog may not have been chasing deer at the moment when 

 it was shot, if the chasing of the deer and the shooting of 

 the dog were all one and the same transaction (q). 



To justify shootiQg the dog of another person, it is not Shootiuo- a 



sufficient to show that it was of a ferocious disposition, dog in self- 

 protection. 



(k) Curtis T. Mills, 5 C. &P. 489. 10 R. R. 626. 



(l) See note {d), ante. (p) Wadhurst v. Damme, Cro. 



(m) Kellett v. Stannard, 4 Ir. Jur. Jac. 46. 



50 (Ex. Ir.). [q) Frotheroe t. Matthews, 5 C. & 



(») Wells T. Bead, 4 C. & P. 568. P. 581. 

 to) Janson t. Brown, 1 Camp. 41 ; 



z 2 



