Litchfield enquirer., 1875-05-06
liability for Dogs.

An interesting case was tried in court, last week. involving responsibility for in- juries alleged to have been committed by dog.
 The plaintiff, young girl named sHar- riet Duto, aresidentof Sharon, was cross ing ditch into the road, on her way to school, when, as she testified, dog sprang upon her from behind, pushed her violent ly.into the ditch and bit her slightly on the leg. She did not see the dog near her but swore that she felt the stroke of his paws and the bite he gave her. The inju- ry she suffered from the fall was a very serious one, resulting in permanent disa- biiity. The alleged bite was very slight. The defense offered the testimony of Mir. Erastus L. Holcomb, a man in the employ of Hopkins, who was driving team be- hind the girl, and who testified that he saw her fall and that the dog was not near her at the time.
 The defendant further offered evidence to prove that the dog was not his, but be- longed to son who lives with him and who is of age. This latter point raised 8 law question of considerable interest to the public generally and the judge charged the jury as follows regarding the liability of the ''keeper" of any dog under the statute:
 "Was the delft at the time in question the keeper of the dog. If he was, then by the statute he is liable although not the owner. And in order to determine this question you must have correct idea of the meaning of the term ''keeper" as used in the statute. think it means more than to be the mere proprietor of the premises where the dog is kept. This of course is one circumstance tending to show that he is keeper; but it may be explained satis- factorily with the idea that another is the keeper and when so explained it goes for nothing.
 Furthermore it implies more than to be the father of an adult son who owns the dog. That is an item of evidence but there must be some other idea than the mere fact that the son occu- pies the homestead and keeps the dog there. One element of being keeper is that of being custodian, but 1t implies more than to be custodian. It implies the outward custody and some inward mental purpose expressed or implied-a state of mind and not the mere fact of custody you cannot make him keeper unless he has keeping mind.
 ''To be keeper, too, implies authority to control and restrain and that undoubted- ly is one very vital part of it. Because it is on this ground in part at least that it is held to be just to subject him to damages for the injuries caused by the dog. If he can take care of it and keep it out of mis- chief why then there is justice in mak- Ing him responsible for the acts of the dog. It would undoubtedly be wrong to subject 8 man to damages for a dog which he did not own unless he could control 1t. There is an expressed provision in the statute in regard to minors and appren- tices, Refers to statute). The idea on which the statute justly rests in regard to them is that there are persons of author ity over them whereby there is practically the power to restrain.
 "And there is undoubtedly an impor- tant distinction between those cases where the dog is with the real owner, and where the owner is unknown. Where 8 man har- bors stray dog, he has the control of it and would be responsible for it. But if you find the real owner with the dog, and both are harbored the case is not nearly so strong. If the real owner is present and can exercise control, you should subject him. It is always your duty to ask wheth- CT the owner was living where the dog liv- ed. For instance, there has been some evidence about MT. Lucas dog following MT. Hopkins. If Mir. Hopkins should open his door and receive him you would not give the same force to it that YOU would if you could not trace the owner. and there is no difference between the sons having dog there and any other person who takes up his abode there. ''So too if the son lived elsewhere and the dog was kept there, it would have 8 very different effect from what it would if the son was present.
 "And if the jury should believe In truth that the dog belongs to the son and that he has not surrendered the control, but simply keeps the dog along with him, and his control is paramount, there is no- thing in that fact which makes Rossiter B. Hopkins responsible.
 "Of course if this is mere pretense to cloak the keepership, the jury will cut through the cloak and discover the real keeper"
 The jury were much divided in opinion, We hear, but finally rendered a compro- mise verdict of $500. It is evident from this verdict that dog is pretty expen- sive piece of property to keep" as well as to own.
 If the Beecher-Tilt case did not occu- py the public attention to such 8 degree, there are some other legal issues being tried that night excite considerable inter- est. The Springfield Republican is hay