—
—
372 Sect.
Animals. 2.
Criminal
Law.
them, and unlawfully setting such engines or snares in whether inclosed or not, or in any inclosed land.
for taking
any part
of a forest,
or destroying fences where deer are kept {e) and the deer-keepers seize the guns, snares, or dogs of offenders, who, if they beat or wound the deer-keepers, are guilty of felony punishable with two years' imprisonment (/). Taking or killing hares or rabbits at night in any warren or ground lawfully used for breeding and keeping them is an indictable misdemeanour {g). The same offence in the day-time or setting snares is punishable summarily before a justice with a fine not exceeding d65 {li).
may demand and
Part
III.
—
Sect. Sub-Sect. Scienter.
Owners
Liability of 1.
1.
of Animals.
Injuries caused hy Animals.
and Harmless Animals.
Injuries hy Domestic
813. The law assumes that animals which from their nature are harmless, or are rendered so by being domesticated for generations, are not of a dangerous disposition©; and the owner of such an animal is not, in the absence of negligence, liable for an act of a vicious or mischievous kind which it is not the animal's nature usually to commit, unless he knows (k) that the animal has that particular vicious or mischievous propensity proof of this knowledge, or scienter, is essential (I). Under this rule it has been held that it is not in the ordinary nature of horses (m), bulls {n), or rams (o) to injure human beings, or of a boar to bite a mare {p), or of a dog to worry sheep, bite
A
(e) Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Yict. c. 96), ss. 14, 15. person cannot be convicted under s, 14 of being in unlawful possession of deer which he has killed neither on the uninclosed nor the inclosed part of a forest, but on the land of a third person outside the limits of the forest {Threlkeld v. Smith, [1901] 2 K.B. 531).
(/)
Ihid.,
s.
16.
[g) Ihid., s. 17.
{h) Ihid., [i)
25
For punishment,
see
s.
117.
17.
Per EsHER, M.E., in Filhurn
a B. D. (k)
s.
v. People's
Palace and
Aquarium
Co. (1890),
at p. 261.
May
v. Burdett (1846), 9 Q. B. 101, where a declaration that contained of negligence was held good; and the gist of the action was said keeping the animal (a monkey) after knowledge of its mischievous pro-
DO allegation to be pensities. (/)
Holt
A
very ancient rule
compare
1
Dyer, 25
Lord b, pi. 162; 1 Yin. Abr. 234 earlier authorities
Mason v. Keeling (1700), 1 Ld. Eaym, 606, and the there cited; and B. v. Huggins (1730), 2 Ld. Eaym. at p. ment of the law. in
1583, for a state-
(m) Cox V. Burhidge (1863), 13 0. B. (n. s.) 430 Hammach v. White (1862), 11 C. B. (N. s.) 588. (n) Hudson v. Boherts (1851), 6 Exch. 697 Blachman v. Simmons (1827), 3 C. & Buxendin v. Sharp (1696), 2 Salk. 662. It has been decided in America P. 138 that the owner of a bull is liable without proof of scienter if it attacks a horse [Dolph V. Ferris (1844), 7 W. & Serg. Pa. 367), and it seems often to be the disposition of horned cattle to attack horses [per Blackburn, J., in Smith y. Cooh (1875), 1 Q,. B. D. at p. 82), though this case is not a decision upon the point. (o) Jackson v. Smithson (1846), 15 M. & W. 563. (p) Jenkins v. Turner (1696), 1 Ld. Eaym. 109.
