Southern standard. (McMinnville, Tenn.) 1879-current, 1885-01-24
Liabilities of Stock Owners.

George w, Hood, Esq, OF the Fenn>
sylvania BoaSd of Agriculture, has
presented the following views of the
Board, as to a farmers liabilities for
damage done by his animals:
1t is generally understand that if a
man turns his animals loose upon the
public highway, and they injure either
the person or the property of another
lawfully using the way, the owner is
responsible for all damages they may
do, whether he knew they were of a
dangerous disposition or not. The
owner of a vicious animal is bound to
confne it, as respects the public; but,
under special circumstances, the ques'
ton whether one who knew the aniN
mails propensities was guilty of cuIpa-
BILE negligence, shall be left to jury.
In one instance a man let his horse
60 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.
1t might have been well for that man
that the Mosaic law was not then in
force; because, under the law it was
declared "that if the owner of an OK
knew that it pushed with its horns,
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"
The owner is liable for injury done by
an animal which is known to be fierce
or dangerous, though it does not belong
to the class of "fcr@ nature" (wild
nature) and where such an animal is
the joint property of two persons, one
Of whom allows the other to have
charge, both are liable to the person
injured. A corporation has been held
liable for the keeping of a vicious dog,
when proven as to some one having
him in charge.
If an owner hitch vicious horse by
the sidewalk in the city, and passer-
by is injured by it, the owner is liable
for the damages he may cause.
AS to the question of a farmers LA
bility for animals on his own premises,
the law has not been so clearly and
expressly defined. In some of the
States it has been held that every own.
er of a dangerous or vicious animal,
known to be such, is liable for all in.
Jury he may do to another, even though
the latter is trespassing on the formers
premises. An instance in the State Of
New York is reported, where far
mer, who was much annoyed by stroll
ing fishermen, put savage bull into
the lot along the stream. Some of his
neighbors demonstrated with him that
he ought to give the fishermen notice
what kind of an animal he was, but he
replied that "the fellow would give
them notice enough HIMSELF" and true
enough, the fellow did give notice
when the opportune time came; and
the result was two broken ribs, which
cost the farmer FIVE hundred dollars.
This was an extreme case, as we take
it. and one in which the owner knew
the animals dangerous propensity, and
had placed him in the field along the
stream for the very purpose of perpe'
trating an injury on some one.
1t is we'll understood that there are
some vicious animals which are with
great difficulty controlled at all, and
where farmer strives to keep them
OR his premises, and within a properly
fenced enclosure, aud gives notice tc
the public that a dangerous animal il
enclosed therin, 1 think he can in nc
way be held responsible tor any mis-
chief they may do.