Crawford avalanche. (Grayling, Mich.) 1879-19??, 1886-08-05

In England and in some of the States
Of this country statutes have been pass
ed whereby the owner of q dog will be
liable for any injury done, even IL he
did not know of his vicious character.
He would not be justified in allowing a
dog to run at large even on his own
premises, for the owner OF q dog keeps
it OF his own risk, being without regard
to care or negligence an insurer against
all the harm which he might reasona-
bly, have expected to ensue. Henry
Austin, in his digest of Farm Law"
states that in Massachusetts, case the
plaintiff was driving along q public
highway and the defendants dog
jumped at the horse and frightened
him SO that he became unmanageable,
ran, and overturned the carriage, dam
aging the same and other property.
Before the accident the defendant
knew of no mischieyous or vicious pro-
pensity in the dog to attack persons or
animals. The defendant offered evil
dence to show that the plaintiff was
unlawfully travelling on Sunday, and
not from necessity or charity. But the
Judge ruled that these facts would not
constitute defence, and obliged the
owner of the dog to pay the sum adj
Judged by the jury as damages. In
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
and Tennessee want of knowledge is
no defence, while in Maine, New Hamp-
shire, Massachusetts, and Michigan
similar law exists, and the owners are
liable for double the amount of dam
ages sustained, which may be increased
threefold after actual notice to the
owner of the animals disposition, in
Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, and Wisconsin. The benefit of
these statutes is not confined to the
person directly injured. The parent or
master of child bitten by q
dog may recover double dam
ages. In New Hampshire and Mas
sachusetts the owner of any domestic
animal, and in Wisconsin the owner of
any sheep or lambs may recover from
the town for any injury inflicted by a
dog. The owner of the injured animal
may, if he chooses, sue the owner OF
the dog instead of claiming his loss
from the town. If he elects, however,
to prove his damages to the super
visors of the town, and accepts an order
on the town treasurer for the amount,
his claim becomes by operation of law
transferred to the town, which may re-
cover against the owner of the dog.
The owner OF the sheep cannot, there
fore, recover against him. BY the law
of Rhode Island, the first time dog
worries sheep the owner may recover
damages therefor of him who harbors
or owns the dog. If, after such first
notice, the dog still lives and Injuries
sheep, his owner is liable for double
damages, and the court wherein the
action for damages is tried may order
the dog to be killed. In Vermont,
double damages may be recovered. In
Connecticut, when person has suf-
fered damages by dogs worrying or
killing his sheep, he must give notice
to the selectmen of the town in which
the damage has been done, and the
selectmen may bring suit for him
against the owner of the offending dog
and unless the owner is reimbursed by
this suit the town becomes liable to the
owner of the sheep for such damage.
When man keeps large and fierce
looking dog, which is in the habit OF
running out to the highway and furious
ly barking or attacking persons passing
along, or horses passing in the neigh
hog1fSse stha exaAE, with ba 1ial NJ II tbo s
shown THAT jba dog had -nreuionsIV hit
cious as to become public nuisance,
and in such cases, if the owner per-
sistently permits it to run at large, any
person may kill it.-America1e Cult