St. Paul daily globe., 1884-12-13
A DOG C4SE-

law suit about dog, trespass and dam
age inflicted has been occupying the atten
tion of the English courts, where the high
and mighty Lord Chief Justice Coleridge
presided, and rendered a decision In the
case. A man was digging hole in the
ground by the side of garden wall. While
in a STOPPING position a large Newfoundland
dog Jumped over the wall aud fell upon the
mans neck. which caused injuries that kept
him in bed for some time, and incapacitated
him for work, much longer. The owner of
the dog offered the laborer two sovereigns, as
some compensation for his injuries and loss
of time. This was refused, and suit brought
against the owner of the dog for damages.
At the trial the plaintiffs lawyer contended
that the act Of the dog in jumping over the
wall was trespass, for which the owner was
responsible, and should respond in damages.
The offer of compen sation was also put in as
proof Of an admission of liability.
Lord Coleridge, with learning and ability
beftting his exalted position, came promptly
to the rescue Of the unfortunate dog, that had
placed his masters purse in such jeopardy,
and declared that the action for damages was
preposterous, and not well taken. For the
benefit of the legal profession, and as a glory
to English Jurisprudence, the learned, and
carefully prepared decision of the Lord Chief
Justice of England and the Indian Empire is
here given verbatim. 1t viii doubtless be
quoted as a legal precedent, aud authority
for all time in every future dog-case that may
arise in Christendom. The Lord Chief JUS
tiee said:
at was an action against person who kept a
dog, because the dog. jumping ABOUT playfully,
jumped over a low wall and into a holo where the
plaintiff happened to be at work. On referring
to the authorities, il is manifest that such an
action could not be maintained. In Mason vs.
Keeling Id. .aym. COG, the well known case
in the time OF Lord Raymond and Lord Holt il
was held that action would not be against
man for mischief done by his dog, unless he
knew that he had done mischief before, or was
of mschievous nature; and the same principle
has also been lald down by Parke, B.. in our own
time. In Brown VS.. Giles /. c. & P. 49, il was
held that dog jumping into field without the
consent OF its master, is not trespass for which
an action will lie. In Beckwith vs.. Shorkike, 4
Bur-, 2093, il was held that an involuntary tres
pass may be justified, but not a voluntary one.
and though the verdict there was for the plaintiff,
this arose from the jurys finding that the tres
pass an intentional trespsss and not a mere
involuntary accident. The result OF all these
cases is that il dog, going about, commits an
injury does any mischief the owner OF the
dog will be liable only il the dog was OF q mis-
chevous nature and he was aware OF that fact;
bat If there be no evidence Of that then no action
will lie. Here there Is no suggestion Of any
proof OF the mischievous nature of the dog.
The only thing suggested a ScieRter is, that
the owner of the dog offered the plaintiff couple
of sovereigns as q compensation: but this
entirely from his good nature. and not because
he was liable in point of law. j am of opinion,
therefore. that the plaintiff has shown no cause
of action, and that this appeal should be dis
missed
1t is but just to add that the decision of
the learned Chief Justice was fully concurred
in, by his Associate on the bench. The de-
cision is justified by the precedents quoted.
and is doubtless good law, as every dietium
of Lord Chief Justice of England ought to
be! The learned Chief Justices late domes-
tic difficulties arising from his attempt to pre-
vent the marriage of his daughter with Mr..
Adams, a respectable English barrister, and
his violently turning her out Of doors, and
altering his will TO disnherit her, do not
seem to have clouded his intellect, and he is
still as capable as ever of rendering learned
and profoundldecisions, in any and all dog
eases that may occnr to enrich the records of
English jurisprudenceI