Some Delights of the Legal Profession. this sea lion was its own master until the fisherman caught it, and thereupon it be came his and subsequently Mr. Bradley 's. Everybody knows that a common sow with a litter of pigs is a dangerous animal. The bristles and savage tusks of the black razorback are enough to drive terror into the bravest soul. Now, what should a farmer, who insists upon having hogs, do to protect his neighbors and their property from them? Well, in brief he should shut them up. The disposition of hogs to roam, and to root up the earth in search of luscious roots and kernels, is well known, and if one, owning such beasts, permits them, to wander abroad and commit depredations upon his neigh bor's land he must be prepared to bear the consequences. Who would suppose, how ever, that a sow and her litter of pigs would go into a neighboring pasture and there attack a cow, mutilating and mangling her with their teeth so as to kill her? A case of that kind occurred about the year 1844 in Ulster County of the State of New York. A man of the name Van Leuven, was the owner of a cow, which was peacefully enjoy ing the comforts of life in the pasture where she belonged. Doubtless it was very far from her dreams as she lay chewing her cud upon the dewy grass that the end of her existence was nigh; but lo! through the umbrageous distance appeared Mrs. Sow and a numerous brood of her offspring. What it was about Mrs. Cow that provoked the ire of Mrs. Sow, whether innate feminine envy of her race, color or condition, the case sayeth not, but certain it is that there was soon a great commotion in the vicinity of the cow, and presently the sward was dyed in the crimson of that gentle creature. Of course Mr. Van Leuven proceeded at the law to attempt to get damages from Messrs. Lyke and Dumond, the alleged owners of the sow and pigs, and he would infallibly have done so but for the fact that it was not shown in the case that the aforesaid sow and pigs were by nature calculated to do such
419
damage or that they had theretofore clone the like and that their owners had knowledge thereof, and hence 'this did not come within the rule that the owners of domestic animals are liable for such damage as they are cal culated ordinarily to do when permitted to go at large. Had the sow and pigs rooted open a dozen sacks of corn and consumed a large part ot their contents, destroying the balance, this would have been such a case as would have made the defendants liable beyond doubt, and indeed a recovery may be had for mischief done by tame animals, mansuctac naturae, such as horses, oxen, cows, sheep, swine and the like to the person or property of another, provided only it can be shown that their viciousness was known to their owner. Finally, in this aspect of the subject, let us briefly consider a horse case. The trickiness of horse dealers is proverbial, and the law books are full of cases concerning spavined, ring-boned, splinted, wind-broken, blind and glandered horses. Since David Harum, the hero of Mr. Westcott's novel, has impressed so many people pleasantly with the slick manner in which he put off a balky horse on his old enemy, the deacon, it may be well to consider from a legal standpoint just what would have happened to David had he made such a deal as this in cold reality. A case came up in England long ago (Wood v. Smith, 4 C. & P., 45), in which it appeared that a man when about to sell a mare was asked the question: "Is she sound?" To this he replied, "She is, to the best of my knowledge." "Will you warrant her?" said the buyer. "No," said the seller, "I will not; I will not even warrant myself." Thereupon the marc was sold, and afterwards it turned out that she was unsound when sold and that the seller must have known it. Lord Tenterden, in delivering the opinion in this case, said: "If a man says when he sells a mare, 'She is sound to the best of my knowledge, but I will not warrant her,' and it turns out
