DOG-LAW IN DOGGEREL. BY CHARLES MORSE, Assistant Editor of the Canada Law Journal.
I.
DOGS AND TRESPASSERS.
SARCH v. BLACKBURN. 4 C. & P. 297. REGULA : Contra nocentew. tenere catiem non est atipa.
I sing the old Ford watchman: (What better name than Sarch For him who spent his vigils in dogging mischief's march?) But Fate, with her grim ironies, ne'er lets us go unflogged; And this dog's tale unfolds to us how doggers may be dogg'd. Defendant was a milkman; and, lest his patrons saw How milk and water coalesce, he kept a canine jaw To fright away all trespassers; and up this legend nailed: "Beware the dog!"—a sign before all hearts but Sarch's quailed. 'Twas not so much that Sarch's nerve proclaimed heroic breed, As that the plaintiff in his youth had not been taught to read. One summer morn, his duties done, the plaintiff left his beat, And plann'd to cut through Blackburn's lot and save his weary feet. In vain kind Phœbus threw his rays on that portentous sign; Unletter'd Sarch maintained "his march past pigs, and fowl and kine. The kennel's near, yet no one warns—the men are in the mews, A moment more and Towser's teeth are fastened in his trews! Though homespun's tough, 'twas not enough those sharp teeth to enmesh, A lucky Shylock Towser proved—he got his pound of flesh! Nota.—By no exercise of poetic license may a dog be set down as able to remove a pound of carnous tissue at one fell bite, hence we feel it incumbent upon us at this juncture to unhorse the reporter from Pegasus, and bid the latter go to grass, the former to prose, so that Sarch and his cause may be reported aright. The following proposition of law is a fair deduction from the instructions of Tindal, C. J., to the jury in this case: A person is justified in keeping a dog in his yard for the protection of his premises, and if one in the act of trespassing upon such premises is bitten by the dog, he has no right of action against the owner. But the learned Chief Justice said that a man has no right to keep a ferocious dog in such a situation, in the way of access to his huuse, that a person coming there for a lawful purpose may be injured by it. In such a case, the owner of the dog could not excuse his liability by showing that he had posted up a danger notice by which the person injured might have been put on his guard had he read it. (See also Brock v. Copeland, I Esp. 203; Curtis v. Mills 5 C. & P. 489.)
