—
—
Part
Dogs.
VI.
397
Sect. 1. But he must not so use his land as to tempt the dogs of soil (/<)• thus if he sets traps baited with strong- At Common others to destruction Law. smelling meat so near his neighbour's yard, or so near a highway where dogs may lawfully pass, that dogs are irresistibly drawn to And nothing will justify the traps, he is liable in damages (i). the setting of spring guns, man-traps, or other engines dangerous to human life and limb, and likely to inflict grievous harm {k).
±—By
Sect. Sub-Sect.
1.
Statute.
Injuries to Cattle
and Sheep.
859. The necessity of proving scienter where injury is caused Proof of by dogs worrying sheep and cattle has been abolished by statute {I). SGienter unnecessary. The owner of a dog is liable in damages for injury done to any Owner's cattle by the dog. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to show a liability. in propensity the dog, or the owner's knowledge previous mischievous of such previous propensity, or that the injury was attributable to neglect on the part of the owner {m). Where any such injury has been done by a dog, the occupier of Who is liable any house or premises where the dog was kept or permitted to as owner. live or remain at the time of the injury is presumed to be the owner of the dog, and is liable for the injury unless he proves Where there are that he w^as not the owner at that time iii). more occupiers than one in any house or premises let in separate apartments or lodgings, or otherwise, the occupier of the particular part of the house or premises in which the dog has been kept or permitted to live or remain at the time of the injury is presumed to be the owner of the dog (o). If the damages claimed do not exceed five pounds they may Kecovery be recovered under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts as a civil damages.
of
debt(29). cattle " in the
The expression asses, sheep, goats, (A)
Deane
v.
and swine
Act
of
1906 includes horses, mules,
Clayton (1817), 7 Taunt. 489; Jordin v.
Crump
(1841), 8
M.
&W.
782. {i) Townsend v. Wathen (1808), 9 East, 277. He would probably now also be liable under the Malicious Damage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Yict, c. 97), or the Cruelty to Animals Acts see pp. 409 et seq., post. (/v) Bird V. Holhrook (1828), 4 Bing. 628. See, however, the earlier case of Ilott V. Wilkes (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 304, where the plaintiff was a trespasser and knew of the guns. See now the Offences against the Person Acfc, 1861 (24 & 2o
c. 100), s. 31, and title Criminal Law and Peocedijiie. Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s, 6, which re-enacts a similar provision contained in s. 1 of the repealed Dogs Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Yict. c. 60). (m) Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s. 1 (1). It is no defence to the claim
Yict. (/)
that the cattle were trespassing on the defendant's land at the time {Grange v. iSilcock (1897), 13 T. L. E. 565). As to what is sufficient evidence of a dog killing sheep, see Leiuis v. Jones (1884), 49 J. P. 198. This provision does not go so far as the corresponding [n) Ihid., s. 1 (2). repealed s. 2 of the Act of 1865, the important words " and that such dog was kept or permitted to live or remain in the said house or premises without his sanction or knowledge " being omitted from the exception. Compare Gardner v. Hart (1896), 44 W. E. 527. (o) Ihid., s. 1 (2).
Ip) Ibid.,
s.
1 (3).
(q) Ihid., s. 7.
_
This
is
an extension.
Definition o£ " cattle."
iq).
The Act
of 1865
was confined
to sheep
