Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1879-01-01


owner of the animals stating the cause of
impounding them, the amount of damage
done by them, the charges for feeding, etc,
in order that the owner may come aud pay
the damages and take away the beasts. IL
he does not come, or if the party impound-
ing prefers, he may in the first instance
drive them TO the pound or send for field
driver (who is generally the last married
man in town., and request him to impound
them, sending a similar memorandum TO the
pound keeper, and also written notice of
the fact TO the owner of the animals within
twenty-four hours, containing a description
of the beasts and statement of the time,
place and cause of impounding. Before the
owner can release his animals he must pay
the damages and all the expenses and If he
declines to do so they may be sold by public
auction, and the balance of the proceeds
above the expenses deposited with the town
treasurer for the benefit of the owner. This
remedy seems TO be seldom resorted to in
modern days, for in most of the town pounds
which we pass we notice that the gate is en-
tirely gone or so dilapidated as to furnish
very little security against the escape OF an-
imals confined therein nevertheless, every
town is liable still TO fine of fifty dollars
for not keeping one or more suitable pounds
A recent law of this commonwealth has
| added one more protection against invading
animals, making the owner of any sheep
cattle, horses, swine or folds liable to fine OF
ten dollars if he wilfully allows them to enter
auother's orchard, garden, moving land or
| other improved land, after receiving written
notice from the owner forbidding it (St.
| 1878, c. 1851 This statute extends to fowls,
which the laws in regard to impounding
| did not.
FARMERS LIABILITY FOR HIS ANIMALS.
Passing from the subject of cattle stray
ing away and doing damage on other peo-
| pies grounds we have next to consider how
| far the farmer is liable for their good be-
havior in the public streets, or even on his
own premises. And it may not be gener-
ally understood that if man turns his ami
mails loose into the public highway, and
they there injure the person or property of
another, lawfully using the way, the owner
is responsible for all damages they may do,
whether he knew that they had any danger
Gus disposition or not a Allen, 44D. He
had no right to let his cattle run loose in
the public highway. In one instance a man
| let his horse go out to feed in public place,
where some very young children were play
ing, and some of them began to switch him,
whereupon he turned and kicked one of them
so that he died, and the owner was convicted
of manslaughter. Had he known the ami
NAL was dangerous it might have even been
more serious with him, since, in the Mosaic
| law, it was declared that if the owner of an
OK knew that it pushed with his horn, and
did not keep it in, and it killed a man or
woman, not only the OK, but also the owner,
was put to death Exodus xxi 29). And
now as to his liability for animals on his
own premises. Every owner of dangerous
or vicious animal, known to be such, is liza
BILE for all injury he may do to another, even
though the latter is at the time trespassing
on the formers premises g +. ID. Smith,
3D. If, therefore, a boy, while robbing an
orchard, is loped by vicious bull into the
boughs of the apple tree overhead, the owner
is as much liable in law to pay for the boy
torn trowsers as if he had received the same
salutation when coming up the path to call on
the farmers youngest daughter But this
extreme and severe liability absolutely de-
ponds upon the fact whether the owner of
the animal had any previous knowledge Of
the brute's warlike disposition. If so, the
mere keeping of such an animal unconfned
is itself, in law, deemed culpable negligence.
If he did not know the fact, some other form
Of negligence is essential in order to make
an owner of an animal liable for his conduct
while on the owners premises, or while law
fully in the highway under the care of a
keeper. For this reason, if mans horse
runs away in the street and Injuries some
one, or breaks a carriage the owner is not
liable unless he carelessly left him unhitched,
or was guilty of some other negligence. The
not uncommon opinion to the contrary is
quite erroneous.
The question of liability for and protec-
ton against dogs has been a perplexing one
from earliest times. The laws of Scion, un-
doubtedly the wisest lawgiver of his age, de-
clared that if any dog bit person he should
be delivered up and bound to log of wood
four cubits long; the Romans also adopted
the same law in their Twelve Tables -
while an early law in Wales provided that
after dog had bitten three persons he
should be first tied to his masters leg and
then killed. Owing to the naturally wild
and fierce disposition of dogs, it has not been
generally thought necessary, in order to
make the owner liable, to prove that he ac-
tually knew the dog was accustomed to bite,
as it is in case of other domestic animals.
The law presumes that the son of every
| Puritan farmer in Massachusetts has been
brought up from boyhood to repeat those
lines of good old DIR. Watts
| " Let dogs delight to bark and bite,
| For tbs their nature to.
Accordingly the owner is liable if they
do, whether his education on this point has
been neglected or not g Allen 1919. And
not only so, he must with us pay double
damages for the pleasure of keeping such
animals, and which after actual notice may
be increased to threefold. And so compre-
hensive is this law that if your dog rushes
out into the street, and in mere play Jumps
at horses head, whereby he is frightened
and runs away, breaking the carriage and
perhaps the limbs of the occupants, you are
responsible for double the amount of the en-
tire damage, though it amounts to several
thousand dollars for the liability of the
owner is not limited to damages from the
bite of dog, but extends to any direct
injury, however caused q Allen, 1919.
Again, if your dog is at large, although he
is a goodnatured Newfoundland, and being
leased and irritated by young children at
play, turns upon them and bites one severely
you may be liable to heavy damages
although the dog was never known to bite
before a Allen, 43D. And this is so,
although the dog is duly licensed and
collared. The object of the dog tax was
| not 10 exempt the owner OF dog, when
known, for his former liability for all his
dogs mischief, but to provide fund for the
remuneration of the farmer, when the owner
was not known, or was not pecuniarily re-
sponsible. Accordingly any man injured
in his person or property by dog may now
have either mode of redress he may file his
claim with the selectmen and take simply
the amount of damages he may have sus
tanned, or he may go for the owner of the
dog and get double damages if he can, but
he cannot try both methods. If he is paid
his simple damage out of the dog tax the
county may compel the owner of the guilty
dog to refund the amount paid out. But nc
man is obliged to wait until the mischief is
done and then seek redress by the law.
delay. You may take the law into youl
own hands, and kill any dog, licensed oil
not, that suddenly assaults you while peace
ably walking or riding in the public streets
and so you may if the dog is found out Of
the enclosure or care OF the owner, wound
ing, worrying or killing any neat cattle
sheep or lambs. If dog is not licensed
your right to kill him is much broader
The law says you may kill him "whenevel
or wherever found" But if you think thi,
authorizes you to kill him on his owner,
premises, and you should pursue him int
his owners house and then kill him, con